Sentences with phrase «support argumentation»

For example, the ELA Standards demand a greater balance between reading informational and literary texts, and stress the use of text - based evidence to support argumentation in writing and speaking.

You should present a new idea in each paragraph and provide supporting argumentation.

Once you find some answers to your essay topic problems, you may decide to gather interesting quotations to support your argumentations.

Not exact matches

When asked for evidence to support their assertions, they respond with either dishonest argumentation or flat out ad hominem.

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

I suspected I'd get a little pushback from fellow Christians who hold a complementarian perspective on gender, (a position that requires women to submit to male leadership in the home and church, and often appeals to «biblical womanhood» for support), but I had hoped — perhaps naively — that the book would generate a vigorous, healthy debate about things like the Greco Roman household codes found in the epistles of Peter and Paul, about the meaning of the Hebrew word ezer or the Greek word for deacon, about the Paul's line of argumentation in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11, about our hermeneutical presuppositions and how they are influenced by our own culture, and about what we really mean when we talk about «biblical womanhood» — all issues I address quite seriously in the book, but which have yet to be engaged by complementarian critics.

Hartshorne believes that his method is sufficiently empirical to support his claim to having an empirical epistemology, but he does not exclude transcendental argumentation from empirical method.

This is where Hartshorne could, and in some implicit ways does, drive a wedge in Brightman's view, because Brightman is willing as a point of method to collapse metaphysical questions into epistemological questions.29 Hartshorne is not so willing, and thinks personalism must employ both inductive (empirical) and transcendental argumentation to support its own claims.

This is why I believe it's so important to study both historical religious arguments supporting the abolition of slavery and historical religious arguments opposing the abolition of slavery (see my post on Mark Noll's The Civil War as a Theological Crisis» for a sampling), as well as historical religious arguments supporting desegregation and historical religious arguments opposing desegregation — not because I believe both sides are equal, but because the patterns of argumentation that emerge are so unnervingly familiar:

Ezzo's Weak Argumentation and Support I shudder when I remember the envy I felt reading the first sentence of Ezzo's introduction.

The game's goal is to support students in developing discussion and argumentation skills.

Educators attending this program will discover that students making claims, supporting claims with evidence, constructing explanations and preparing rebuttals to argumentation is integral to science inquiry and engineering design and intersects with the Common Core for Mathematics and English Language Arts.

She has taught 7 - 12 grade mathematics for the past 21 years, and has endeavored to support students» development of fundamental mathematical understanding through reasoning and argumentation.

A primary goal of this proposal is to provide students a Science Dialogue Heuristic (SDH) that supports oral argumentation through a promotion of epistemic vigilance, which is an inclination for frequent questioning that recognizes the importance of critique.

Nevertheless, you have to plan your writing and come up with a strong argumentation based on supporting secondary sources.

Next, you have to proceed with constructing a solid argumentation supported with evidence from secondary sources.

Despite these differences, essays typically require a form of argumentation - the student is expected to put forward an overall argument or point of view and then «prove» the argument with supporting reliable evidence.

An unsupported assertion, much less probable, on the evidence, than the mirroring assertion that denialist argumentation is carefully selected to support a pre-conceived view.

I'm not really taking sides here, but pointing out that for the underlying support of the «don't worry» argumentation here to be effective, IMHO, the premise must be that the previous 5 extinctions were caused by sentient beings that knew and debated the consequences of their actions, thus everything turned out OK»cause there's still sentient beings around to choose their fate.

I realize that «true believers in the CAGW dogma» (in the pseudo-religious sense) are not going to change their minds based on rational argumentation nor will those who are supporting the CAGW dogma for purely political reasons.

Otherwise, the piece consists of misinformation that Lindzen would certainly not say to his peers and the usual political argumentation method of selective historical presentation to support an argument.

Innovative methods based on improvisational theater help teachers better support mathematical argumentation, one of the Common Core practice standards.