本文是关于误导信息的讲解，首先，本文中Advance Australia对Burqua使用的论证方法的不足之处在于使用了误导信息。误导信息是不道德的，这种行为也会产生后果。看看Advance Australia是如何不恰当地使用罗伊•摩根(Roy Morgan)关于女性是否应该穿罩袍的研究数据的。Advance Australia在其文章中强调，约81%的澳大利亚人反对在公共场合穿Burqua的政策。虽然统计数字为真，但应用这些数字的陈述是假的。本篇论文代写文章由美国论文人EducationRen教育网整理，供大家参考阅读。
Firstly, the weakness of the argument approach used by Advance Australia in this article on the use of Burqua is that it has made use of misleading information. Misleading information is unethical and the action has consequences as well. Consider how Advance Australia makes improper use of statistics from the Roy Morgan study on whether women should wear the burqa. Advance Australia in its article highlights that around 81 percent of Australians are against the policy of wearing Burqua in public. While the statistical number is true, the statement for which the numbers are applied is false.
In the Roy Morgan study, it has simply been implied that 81 percent of Americans are against women wearing Burqua in the court. In fact, in the context of whether women should be allowed to wear Burqua in public places, the vote was a divided one. Forty eight percent said “yes” and the rest said “no”. This was the true state of the census taken and for Advance Australia to make the claim that around 81 percent said no to burka without stating the location for which they said no, was highlight misleading as a journalistic practice. Secondly Advance Australia was seen to be overgeneralizing some things misleading the audience once again. The report on the theft clearly mentions a robbery where the person was dressed in either an IRA balaclava or a Muslim style scarf. Also, the persons were men. Advance Australia has taken this fact and constructed a very misleading case where it has associated the Burqua unnecessarily to the theft, stating that thieves are making use of it. This once again highlights the weak unethical argument of Advance Australia.
The second premise is how Advance Australian makes use of misleading strongly persuasive rhetoric’s. The strength of this approach is that it can be highly persuasive. However, the weakness is that Advance Australia’s argument is unbalanced when it comes to persuasive rhetoric’s, more pathos is used and less of logos and ethos. Pathos is the state of representing everything in a more emotional way. Advance Australia’s makes use of a strong emotional approach where they blame the non-supporters of the Burqua ban, kind of like shaming them. The weakness of this approach is that not all readers are interested in emotions alone; they want to see a logical supported clear argument, from a credible source, like a member of the Parliament support the claim before they will accept it.