1. Critical thinking in politics
Especially in regards to emotive community issues includes examining how the citizens interact with the information they get by listening to or reading about the issue. It also includes assessing how the people interact with the others regarding those issues. A divisive matter such as fracking would require Mr. Machiavelli to consider both sides of the divide. As an individual seeking elections, it is rather obvious that he may lose some of his supporters who do not support fracking while gaining the 50% of the undecided voter. Thinking critically, in this case, would require him to think as a social scientist first to understand the implications of his announcement to his supporters. He should then analyze the other alternative of not supporting the process of fracking for natural gases. By so doing, this would help him to weigh the pros and cons of going for or against it. After putting the pros and cons of either sides of the argument, Machiavelli may consider the side of his political party and the implications of his announcement in regards to his party position. Finally, he may consider his personal position on the matter and his opinion on fracking, both the benefits and the disadvantages.
2. Accuracy of pollsters
This statement attests to the accuracy of pollsters based on the accuracy of random sampling methods. Pollsters are often taken to be the barometers for the accuracy of many elections in general. They often measure the public opinion by predicting which of the interviewed individuals are going to vote and the direction in which they are likely to vote. The accuracy of random sampling in determining the projection of the pollsters. Random sample is founded on the need to minimize the impact of the survey on the sample. Additionally, there is often a minimal margin of error in the results from the portion of the population. This statement, however, ignores the error associated with the sampling method and takes the results of the polling to be absolute. Nevertheless, the statement also mentions the aspect of evidence and reasoning, thus making the polls seem like a conclusion of a valid argument. As such, when the premises of the polls are considered to be valid then the conclusion is said to be true. In light of this, it is quite apparent that besides the results of the random sampling, there is also an accompanying reasoning to the polling results to justify the projections thus giving the voter surety that the election may go as projected in the polls.
3. Interpretation based on the Principle of Charity
This report may be interpreted based on the Principle of Charity – interpret for others as you would like them to interpret for you. Starting a case from a standpoint of doubt implies that there is an absence of evidence from the word go. As such, there is a likelihood of a logical folly from whichever result will be attained. However, the end of the statement implies that the integrity and credibility of the individual is in jeopardy from any result that will be reached. Nevertheless, it is prudent to get to the right way to reason out Pavel’s intention so as to jeopardize the results of the argument. It is prudent to find the absolute premise and truth before making a conclusion. Therefore, arguing from the standpoint of the benefit of the doubt is out of question. It is prudent to find the best possible interpretation of his intentions rather than the result of his actions so as to determine whether he is a criminal or not. As such, it is quite ostensible that a charitable position is more appealing to the case than a non-charitable one altogether. This would help to make an absolute case that is beyond reasonable doubt. The aftermath of the conclusion from whichever standpoint, whether charitable or otherwise still has no impact on the perception of his credibility.
4.1. Relationship between case and speed
The first statement is simply declarative. It indicates no relationship between two different constructs, however. In this case, it does not draw the relationship between the case (for which the defendant stands) and the speed at which he was driving. The first statement has, therefore, not been proven. On the other hand, the second one has both a logical and empirical connotation. The statement is a conclusion to a premise and as such there is definitely a conjectural relationship between the defense and the speed he was driving at.
4.2. Concepts of semantics and logic
Both of the two statements show that the defendant drove over the speed limit of 80km/hr. However, the first one is only declarative without proof while the second one actually proves it. Nevertheless, the two items show the concepts of semantics and logic in regards to proving the guilt of the defendant.
4.3. Doubt on the speed limit
The first item still needs to be proven so as to determine whether the defendant actually drove over the speed limit. The second item puts the limit at 80 km per hour. It implies that the defendant may have driven at a speed of 80km/hour or more. Therefore, the second item puts to doubt the first and second statements.
4.4. Confirmation and refutation of statements
The first item confirms both the first and the second statement. The second item, however, refutes both of the statements. It includes the fact that the defendant was actually driving slower than asserted by both statements, and as such may not have a case.
4.5. Confirmation and disparagement of statements
The first item confirms both statements, however, it does not show the aspect of proof. The second item, on the other hand, confirms the first statement and disparages the second one.
4.6. Confirmation and burden of proof
Both items in this case confirm the cases of the two statements above. They declare and show the burden of proof as well.
4.7. Deductive reasoning
The first statement is simply declarative. The second statement is deductive. It deduces the problem from the perspective of the speed and not the defendant. However, both statements allude to the fact that the defendant drove above the speed limit.
4.8. False premise and conclusion
The item here is a deductive reasoning to determine the case. It is a logical assertion that disparages the burden of proof and not the actual mistake of driving above the speed limit. It is from this disparagement that the statement refutes both the declaration that the defendant was driving above the speed limit and the proof that she actually did it. The premise of this argument, however, is quite shaky. It is quite obvious that the driver was above the speed limit and that the condition already presented itself, the empirical observation is also present and as such, this item starts from a false premise thus making the conclusion false as well.
