Write a dialogue between two characters (patterned on the dialogue found in Section 9.3 of your text) about an ethical issue concerning the practice of your future career.

Write a dialogue between two characters (patterned on the dialogue found in Section 9.3 of your text) about an ethical issue concerning the practice of your future career. Your characters should take opposite sides of the issue and debate it, with each countering the points of the other. Both characters should hold reasonable positions and offer decent arguments in favor of their positions. For the dialogue topic, your characters should focus on the ethics related to actually working within the career field you have chosen rather than a broader ethical issue that is related to that field. For instance, if your future career field is law, your characters should focus on a moral dilemma that a practicing lawyer might encounter in working within that field, rather than some broader ethical issue such as the moral permissibility of capital punishment. The same holds true for any career field: focus on the ethics of practicing within that field rather than the broader ethical issues that people associate with that field or that might be discussed in theoretical terms by practitioners.

This dialogue should be 500-600 words in length. It may be written in a script format or paragraph format but must be modeled on the dialogue in Section 9.3 in your text.

Your dialogue must include two different discussions:

1) Analogy: Have one character offer an argument by analogy in defense of their conclusion. This argument must be a clear instance of analogical reasoning (it should not simply be a metaphor or simile) and must avoid the weak analogy fallacy. Highlight the argument by analogy so that I know where your analogy appears. Then have the other character object to this argument by analogy by pointing out a relevant dissimilarity between the analogues. If space permits, you may have your first character defend their analogy or make amendments to it. Or you may have your second character offer a counter-analogy. But these additions should follow, rather than replace, the primary debate which should consist of an original analogy and then an objection that points out a weakness in the argument by analogy.

2) Statistics: Have one character offer an argument that uses statistics in a potentially problematic way. This character may use samples, averages, or percentages (your choice which one) but it must be clear which they are using and their argument must be used to defend their position. Highlight the statistical argument so that I know where it appears. Then, have the other character point out at least one issue with the first character’s statistical argument (if they have enough information to know the exact issue) or raise a question about the statistics (if they do not have enough information to know exactly what problem exists). For instance, if the initial argument uses an unrepresentative sample, the second character could point out the exact reason why it is unrepresentative (if it makes sense that the character would know) or could ask who was sampled and how. If the second character simply asks a follow-up question, it would likely make sense to have you first character respond with an answer and then continue the dialogue from there.

I have attached dialogue 9.3 below and also the rubric.

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]