Which of the following best describes george will’s primary argument?

Which of the following best describes george will’s primary argument?

The first presidential debate: hillary clinton and donald

Huge audiences can be expected at concerts, sporting events, and political rallies. You will only know the people you came with if you attend one of these events. You can, however, feel a sense of belonging to the party. You’ve joined the crowd. When anyone else cheers and applauds, you do the same. You join in the booing and yelling. If anyone wants to pass, you step out of the way, and when you need to leave, you say “excuse me.” You know how to act in a crowd like this.
When you are traveling in a foreign country and find yourself in a crowd moving down the street, it can be a very different experience. It’s possible that you’re having trouble finding out what’s going on. Is the crowd just the ordinary morning rush, or is it some kind of political demonstration? Maybe there was some kind of mishap or tragedy. Is it safe to stay in this crowd, or should you try to get out? What’s the best way to figure out what’s going on? Despite the fact that you are there, you may not feel like you belong. You may be unsure of what to do or how to act.

Police: last week tonight with john oliver (hbo)

Arguments are among the most persuasive documents we come across when reading. Developing a strong case necessitates taking a stand on a topic, introducing the issue to your readers in such a way that they see your stance as fair, and developing arguments and facts to support your position. You’ll learn about the writing and research processes that help writers create powerful, well-grounded arguments in this guide and others like it.
An claim, by definition, necessitates the presence of a debatable subject. To put it another way, there must be at least two sides to any case. When there are two or more opposing viewpoints, each one becomes a part of the background.
Another aspect of the background is the viewer, or those who can hear the argument. And, since it will include both supporters and opponents, it is important that you state your stance clearly. It is the cornerstone on which each brick of the proof will be stacked, and it must be able to withstand both its own weight and the bombardment of opposing claims.

Bush, clinton, perot: the first 1992 presidential debate

The lead portion of this article may be too short to properly summarize the main points. Please consider extending the lead to include a clear description of the article’s major points. (Updated August 2019)
This article’s neutrality has been questioned. On the talk page, you can find relevant discussion. Please wait until the conditions are met before removing this post. (Updated August 2019) (To find out when and how to delete this template message, read the instructions at the bottom of this page.)
George Frederick Will (born May 4, 1941) is an American political analyst and author who leans libertarian-conservative. He contributes to The Washington Post’s daily columns and NBC News and MSNBC’s commentary. [1] He was dubbed “perhaps the most powerful journalist in America” by The Wall Street Journal in 1986, alongside Walter Lippmann (1889–1974). [two] [three] In 1977, he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.
Will is the son of Frederick L. Will and Louise Hendrickson Will, and was born in Champaign, Illinois.
[4] His father was a professor of philosophy at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, specializing in epistemology. Will graduated from University Laboratory High School in Urbana, Illinois, in 1959.

This final chapter is unlike the others. It is a capstone activity in which you can apply the skills you’ve gained to one current, contentious topic rather than adding a new field of critical thinking.
Global climate change is the subject of this case study. You will not be asked to form an opinion or form a stance on this subject because it is beyond the reach of this course to fully analyze a complex science topic. Rather, the material in this chapter is provided so that you can practice analyzing claims, recognizing fallacies, and challenging sources, with the goal of continuing to use these skills if you encounter persuasion material.
This chapter will not contain any new information. Instead, we present some pertinent summary notes that have been taken from previous chapters. As you work through the course’s final videos, posts, and questions, you should refer to these notes for a refresher.
3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: the arguer argues that when two events have a connection (i.e., one followed the other), the first must have triggered the second. The word means “after this, therefore because of this.” It’s Latin for “after this, therefore because of this.”