Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Final Assignment Example
Final Assignment Example
Promise
1.1.1 The Burqa allows for wrongdoing to go unchecked.
1.1.2 Terrorists wear Burqas.
1.1.3 The Burqa gives motorists the ability to avoid prosecution.
1.1 The Burqa encourages criminal actions.
1 The Burqa is a tool of criminals.
2.1 Equality for women is a core Australian value.
2.2 The Burqa represents the repression of women.
2 The Burqa conflicts with Australian values.
[cc] Although liberals see the Burqa as an acceptable representation of cultural
diversity.
3.1 By participating in traditional customs immigrants hinder integration
into their new culture.
3.2 The burqa is a traditional custom.
3 The Burqa stops cultural integration.
4 We dont allow motorcyclists to wear helmets in banks or service stations.
5 Burqas hide a persons face in the same way that a helmet does.
6 81% of Australians are against the wearing of a Burqa in public.
C. Australia must ban the wearing of a Burqa.
Premise 2: Despite the vagueness of the term core Australian value, we can
accept that equality is valued in Australia. However, sub-premise 2.2 is a very
controversial claim and cannot be accepted on face value. For instance, if the
wearing of the Burqa is a free expression of religious devotion, then the Burqa is
compatible with the value Australians place on religious freedom, making this
premise false. So, since premises 2.1 and 2.2 are linked, the inference to
premise 2 does not follow without further evidence. This means that premise 2
cannot be used to support the conclusion.
Premise 3: There is a causal claim in this sub-argument without the support of a
correlation. We have been given no reason to believe that practicing traditional
customs, and in particular wearing a Burqa, is correlated with the prevention of
cultural integration. In fact, no argument has been given as to why traditional
customs cannot be compatible with conventional Australian freedoms and
values. This seems to be a false dilemma, inferring you are either a Muslim or an
Australian, but not both. So premise 3 again provides no support for the
conclusion.
Premise 4 and 5: This is an analogical argument. The Burqa is the subject and
motor cycle helmets the analogue. The similarities are that they both hide ones
identity. There are some negative relevant differences that weaken this
argument, though. First, the helmet is for safety and is not necessary in petrol
stations and banks. The Burqa is a religions custom that is a defining trait. In
addition, the police have the power to ask that a person remove their Burqa for
the purpose of identification already. Most importantly, the conclusion of the
argument is that the Burqa should be banned and since the author is not
suggesting that motor cycle helmets be banned, this analogical argument is
fallacious as it is entirely irrelevant.
Premise 6: This is a misrepresentation of the facts and will be discussed in
connection with the Morgan poll it is based on.
serving the community since federation, which is irrelevant to the crime being
described and only illicitly reinforces the animosity the author is illegitimately
using to help in persuading the audience. Also, the real Australian culture is
portrayed as one without the Burqa. However, with Australia being a multicultural nation, this description is not justified. It is only designed to further
isolate the Burqa from Australian society without justification.
Emotive language is used to illegitimately associate the Burqa with criminal
behaviour. Such descriptions include, thug and monster when describing the
Burqa wearing thief. There is also an unjustified appeal to fear when the author
describes the current situation as one in which there is a growing sea of Burqa
wearing Muslims in our community without any evidence. Hence, this
description is intended to reinforce the fear that intolerance generates purely
through a rhetorical description.
Vague descriptions and suggestions of certainty are used when describing the
Burqa as a problem and that there is a clear solution. Since we are not told
precisely what the problem is nor why banning it is a clear solution, these uses of
rhetoric are baseless and so weaken the overall argument. The catch phrase we
must ban the Burqa reappears a number of times at the end of paragraphs to
reinforce the main conclusion, however, this tactic is purely a rhetorical ploy and
should not be found to be rationally persuasive.
Overall the rhetoric contained in the argument is intended to set a context in
which real Australian culture is understood as fair minded and culturally diverse,
but that there is animosity which is caused by the practice of Muslims wearing
the Burqa since they are overwhelming our society in an unjust fashion. None of
these claims, however, are supported with any evidence and all the support they
receive comes from the use of persuasive language and so cannot be taken
seriously.
Recommendation
Responding to Advance Australia
In responding to Advance Australia, Ms Resnik should focus on the weaknesses
that accompany each premise of the argument to argue that the position of
Advance Australia is very weak. In particular:
Positive Response
The main points that Ms Reznik should focus on in her response are:
The fact that Australia is first and foremost and multi-cultural nation which
has helped us grow into an enviable nation.
The positive impacts and influences that Muslim immigrants have
contributed to this multi-cultural Australian culture.
The fact that Australia fully supports the expression of religious freedom
and sees no shame in standing up for this principle.
That intolerance and bigotry, of which some of Advance Australias claims
could be accused of, have no place in Australian culture and are sincerely
opposed by all sides of government.