Assisgnmet 4
- Submitted by: mswright2828
- Views: 448
- Category: English
- Date Submitted: 11/18/2011 10:05 AM
- Pages: 2
- Report this Essay
Com 220 week2 DQ2
I believe that the most reliable source is the University Library website. The library presents material that is academically relevant and professionally researched and written. An electronic library is like a traditional library, and just like a traditional library, most people use it to find information that they believe is accurate and written by an educated individual who is well informed about their topic. Unlike the electronic library, the other sources are somewhat credible but each source is biased in its own way.
For instance, Wikipedia contains a lot of factual information that can be used for research. The information is broad and covers multiple perspectives on capital punishment. However, Wikipedia is known for having erroneous information and unreliable sources. Therefore, their credibility is questionable. If you choose to use Wikipedia, it is wise to check the information. Also, use other credible sources as well if you choose to use Wikipedia.
Websites can be credible, but this website is so clearly biased. There is no neutrality in the author's message. The author is clearly arguing for capital punishment. Therefore, any information that is presented by the author will be information to support the practice of capital punishment. The best way to utilize this information, regardless of the bias, is to use it if you strongly agree with the author's point-of-view. When used in this way, you can just regurgitate the information because you are essentially arguing the same points. However, you can use the bias in your favor if you also disagree with capital punishment. You can use the website's bias as reasons why you disagree with the practice of capital punishment.
The blog takes a political approach to dealing with the issues of capital punishment. However, rather than just stating facts about capital punishment, the blogger tries to persuade the audience by showing how Kerry is a progressive Democrat who does not argue...
I believe that the most reliable source is the University Library website. The library presents material that is academically relevant and professionally researched and written. An electronic library is like a traditional library, and just like a traditional library, most people use it to find information that they believe is accurate and written by an educated individual who is well informed about their topic. Unlike the electronic library, the other sources are somewhat credible but each source is biased in its own way.
For instance, Wikipedia contains a lot of factual information that can be used for research. The information is broad and covers multiple perspectives on capital punishment. However, Wikipedia is known for having erroneous information and unreliable sources. Therefore, their credibility is questionable. If you choose to use Wikipedia, it is wise to check the information. Also, use other credible sources as well if you choose to use Wikipedia.
Websites can be credible, but this website is so clearly biased. There is no neutrality in the author's message. The author is clearly arguing for capital punishment. Therefore, any information that is presented by the author will be information to support the practice of capital punishment. The best way to utilize this information, regardless of the bias, is to use it if you strongly agree with the author's point-of-view. When used in this way, you can just regurgitate the information because you are essentially arguing the same points. However, you can use the bias in your favor if you also disagree with capital punishment. You can use the website's bias as reasons why you disagree with the practice of capital punishment.
The blog takes a political approach to dealing with the issues of capital punishment. However, rather than just stating facts about capital punishment, the blogger tries to persuade the audience by showing how Kerry is a progressive Democrat who does not argue...