Argument Evaluation

By reading these articles, the discussion discussed in the two arguments is all about the diversification of government bonds and homeland securities after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This tragedy caused all Americans to worry about safety within the aircraft and made them feel miserable when friends died of an attacker. It is very important that the United States need to take measures to improve homeland security to eliminate the possibility of terrorist attacks (terrorist threats).

In this article, closely related questions, that is, rapid evaluation of expert claims, show that these problems are facing the same problem in various respects but may be easy to learn I will. On the surface it seems easier to evaluate the parameters than solving the problem from the beginning. But once you get a way to evaluate them, I think the gap may be superficial as it is much easier to collaborate to create discussions. To expand the capabilities, you need to implement a strong "behavior" policy, but it is easier to adjust in two important ways than the value. You can make the policy slightly weaker. Perhaps these benefits are not an important advantage, but if so, it will require us to significantly change our understanding of the value alignment problem.

Analyze and evaluate the arguments. Evaluating the data means giving it value - not too rough, but enough to answer these questions: Is discussion or conclusion appropriate? Does it explain everything, or explain only a part? Is it faulty or is it an embarrassing example? How can I make it better? We make reasoning, decision and judgment. Performing reasoning means to draw conclusions from the proposed conclusion, but they are not explicitly stated. Decisions usually include choices, after you have evaluated various possibilities. Similarly, the judgment is made after the evaluation, usually indicating the priority order after investigating both.

C. Discussion about evaluation. Whether something is good or bad depends on your evaluation. The car may be comfortable for long-distance expeditions, but it may not function correctly in bad weather. Therefore, discussion of evaluation can address the purpose of evaluation. They ask, "Good or bad - what?", And you set the standard to help you decide whether it is good or bad. Finally, the evidence you provide shows how much that object matches the critical rear. All three stages of discussion - proof of compliance with evaluation objectives, standards, and standards - are controversial and must be persuasive.