+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com


This final writing assignment allows you to present an analysis of the best reasoning on each side of your issue. In the process, you will get to demonstrate some of the key skills you have learned during this course. In particular, you will demonstrate the ability to create high-quality arguments on both sides of an issue, to support your reasoning with scholarly sources, and to provide a fair analysis of the strength of the reasoning on each side. Use the same topic as you did on your previous papers and make sure to incorporate any relevant feedback you got from the instructor on your previous writing assignments. For an example of how to complete this paper, take a look at the

Week 5 Example

paper (in the classroom).

Your paper must include the following sections, clearly labeled:


Introduce readers to your topic; include a brief preview of what you will accomplish in this paper. (approximately 150 words)

First Argument

Present the best argument on one side of the issue. (approximately 150 words)

Express your argument in standard form, with the premises listed one by one above the conclusion.

Defense for First Argument

Support the first argument as well as you can, using academic sources to demonstrate the truth of key premises. You may also choose to clarify the meaning of key premises and to explain how your reasoning supports the conclusion (approximately 250 words).

Opposing Argument

Present the best argument on the other side of the issue (approximately 150 words).

Express your argument in standard form.

Defense of Opposing Argument

Support the opposing argument as well as you can, using academic sources to demonstrate the truth of key premises. You are welcome as well to clarify the meaning of premises and/or to explain the reasoning further (approximately 250 words).

Analysis of the Reasoning

(approximately 350 words)

Evaluate the quality of each argument, addressing whether key premises are true and whether the conclusion logically follows from them.

Analyze arguments for any fallacies committed or for any biases that may influence either side. Do you feel that one argument makes a much stronger case than the other and why? (There is no need to “take sides,” only to assess the quality of the arguments.)

Support your analysis with scholarly sources.


(approximately 150 words)

Provide a brief conclusion and summary of your issue and how it can best be addressed by critical thinkers.

The Analyzing Reasoning on Both Sides Final Paper

Must be 1,200 to 1,600 words in length (not including title and references pages), double-spaced, and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s

APA Style

(Links to an external site.)

Must include a separate title page with the following:

Title of paper

Student’s name

Course name and number

Instructor’s name

Date submitted

Impacts of social media on relationships
Jenny Cabrera
PHI103: Informal Logic
University of Arizona Global Campus
Elton Hollon
January 17, 2021
Social media use is a complicated phenomenon. It is so because, most adults, about 80%
own a phone, and not any phone but a smartphone. Dating research in accordance with places,
the findings indicate that 60% of Americans are in possession of a smartphone. In matters
Facebook, about 81% of adolescents in America use it. With Facebook being the commonly used
social networking in the world, makes it the perfect spot for impact on relationships. Also, the
prevalence of media globally, has made it possible for people to interconnect than before. The
interconnection breeds so much joy amongst people, bringing about impacts on many types of
relationships. My discussion question, therefore, will be how best has social media impacted
relationships in a digital age? While the opposing argument will be based on, how has social
media contributed to the fear of missing out and anxiety?
One scholarly article by Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas (2016), state that interpersonal
relationships that take place between two or more individuals, can be as a result of both offline
and online interactions. Their study, however, is to help individuals explore and understand how
people use the internet and to the extent in which it affects their offline interpersonal
relationships. An act that “phubbing”, has been known to represent the ability to snub someone
in a relating environment by looking into one’s phone rather than directly speaking to someone.
The phubbing act was at first termed as a rude act but gained trust with time as people are now
embracing it. Lastly, the ability of people to phub others, is totally dependent on the level of
phone addiction.
Just as Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas (2016), stated in their article, another article by
Hertlein (2012) gave a conclusion that the internet continues to give polluted boundaries between
online and offline relationships. It is through phubbing, that Hertlein sought to research the role
of technology in transforming relationships in family. Also, he discovered that the interaction
guidelines with online friends had more perceive consequences on everyday life. Some of
negative effects is the act of compromising offline relationships, job interruption, and internet
Based on the two scholarly sources, the argument based on the conclusion suggests that
misuse of social media can lead to negative society consequences. Some of the consequences
include relationship destruction, social isolation, ruining of social cohesion, and infidelity. The
syntopia phenomenon, as stated in the scholarly source by Kerkhof, Finkenauer, and Muusses
(2011) brings out the interconnection of what we do around offline relationships. Syntopia
explains that the physical and social situation, as well as a person’s history is influenced by what
they did while online and spilled over while offline. Those with internet addiction are known to
decrease the quality of their offline relationships. That argument sums up the conclusion that
social media has negative impacts on relationships for there are frequent fights with partners.
The quality of reasoning on that argument is genius. Conversely, heavy social media
users have lower levels of perceived confidence, while depicting offline relationships. In support
of the reasoning, Park, Kim, and Park, (2016) reveal that an individual’s dependency
development to their cell phone, lead to increased depression and decreased attention bring about
negative impacts on the social relationships with friends. Breakups amongst couples, is also due
to social media use, bearing in mind that intimacy becomes a problem due to spending most of
the time on phone.
The opposing argument is based on (Beyens et al., 2016; Elhai et al., 2016). That
scholarly source depict that addiction to smartphone use often lead to reduced emotional selfcontrol, as explained through two processes. The first process is the increased emotional
suppression, and the decreased cognitive reappraisal. The first one means that one is subjected to
suppressed emotions leading to pressure while the second one is the inability to assess emotional
and mental state in a different way. The two processes, however, hinders one to regulate
emotions well. It is due to the FOMO (fear of missing out) and anxiety phenomenon, that the
opposing argument sets in. opposed to the impacts of social media to relationships, (OeldorfHirsch & Sundar, 2016; Wang, Tchernev, & Solloway, 2012), in their scholarly source state that
the top purpose people utilize social media is keeping in touch with family and friends.
The main argument depicts that the FOMO and anxiety reason of social media impact on
relationships is opposed to suggesting that people use social media with the connection purpose,
thus coming up with the phobia of fear of missing out. People’s anxiety on the use of social
media impact relationships through the Mudita category. That category is so surprising
considering that it deals with people being selfless and depicting happiness for someone else’s
success. As opposed to the negative impacts of social media on relationships, the anxiety on
social media use in most cases spark positivity in some people, when they see other’s success,
bringing about stronger relationships and connectivity.
The quality of reasoning is absurd. It is through the negative impacts that the opposing
argument has been extracted. The other side of the coin on the argument bring about Mudita,
emotional well-being, and happiness. Fear of missing out while using social media only bring out
positive results in relationships for it allows people to keep in touch with each other more often.
Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2016). How “phubbing” becomes the norm: The
antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Computers in Human
Behavior, 63, 9-18.
Hertlein, K. M. (2012). Digital dwelling: Technology in couple and family relationships. Family
Relations, 61(3), 374-387.
Kerkhof, P., Finkenauer, C., & Muusses, L. D. (2011). Relational consequences of compulsive
Internet use: A longitudinal study among newlyweds. Human Communication Research,
37(2), 147-173.
Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Alghraibeh, A. M., Alafnan, A. A., Aldraiweesh, A. A., & Hall, B. J.
(2018). Fear of missing out: Testing relationships with negative affectivity, online social
engagement, and problematic smartphone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 289298.
Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). Social and technological motivations for online
photo sharing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(4), 624-642.
Wang, Z., Tchernev, J. M., & Solloway, T. (2012). A dynamic longitudinal examination of social
media use, needs, and gratifications among college students. Computers in human
behavior, 28(5), 1829-1839.
Impacts of Social Media on Relationships
Jenny Cabrera
The University of Arizona Global Campus
PHI 103: Informal Logic
Elton Hollon
Dec. 20, 2020
Impacts of Social Media on Relationships
Social media is a pervasive phenomenon (Elhai et al., 2016). How would life be without
social media in this era where electronics are the first and the last thing we see everyday? Social
media can impact relationships both positively and negatively. As a result of social media’s
prevalence in our daily lives, people are now more interconnected than any previous historical
time. The use of social media has experienced exponential growth, which has improved
communication among people. Therefore, social media may impact the interconnections among
people, including relationships in one way or another. People who are more active in social
media have greater life satisfaction and advance psychological well-being than those who do not
associate themselves positively with social media. As a result, social media has advanced
potential for affecting the relationship between couples who use it. This paper explores the
impacts of social media on the relationship, both positive and negative, as discussed by the
following articles.
According to the insider from an organization known as Mbgrelationhip, social media’s
benefits in a couple of relationships are discussed. Furthermore, the site provides cognitive
research that addresses the necessity of social media in a relationship. It gives remarks that social
media can be beneficial to a relationship, more so for distance relationships. A report from the
site social media has positive impacts and benefits relationships since it helps single people to
meet (Turner & Prince, 2020). Social media can keep people connected to their partners by
sharing text messages and videos. From the study, we find that social media vital since it can
help people learn suitable lessons concerning relationships from experts. Research has indicated
that social media has replaced the printed photograph and now acts as a time capsule of past
events. Social media use in the relationship is relatively essential since it positively impacts and
benefits an intimate relationship.
This article’s arguments provide strong points concerning the sensitive aspects of social
media’s positive influence on a relationship. Moreover, the site does not indicate the rate at
which social media influence the couple’s relationships (Turner & Prince, 2020) positively. For
instance, the article does not discuss the rate at which positive online lessons can impact the
strength of relationships.
Moreover, the conclusion, in this case, should be made based on the research provided on
this site. The article’s judgment should not be influenced by outside research since the overall
research influences the result. The study should also not give a real perception that social media
does not negatively impact the relationship. Generally, this article’s arguments are powerful in
supporting the conclusion stated as long as the positive aspect concluded in this context is
understood in the limited sense addressed above.
The article used in the discussion of the negative impacts of social media in relationships
was MYDOMAIN. The article explains that social media is dangerous to relationships since
numerous studies indicate that it negatively impacts couple relationships. The reasoning provided
in this article contains the following premises. Research indicates that social media negatively
influences relationships since it can establish unrealistic illusions. The study shows that social
media has a strong linkage with increased jealousy and couples’ dissatisfaction. Social media
exposes couples to conflicts that, in many cases, results in family fights. Further, the research
indicates that social media can change daily life to appear meaningless (Chae, 2018). In
conclusion, social media use is harmful to relationships.
The discussion provided in this article gives sensible reasoning that supports the above
conclusion. The premises are precise in their expression concerning social media’s impact on
relationships (Chae, 2018). For instance, the third premise indicates well that social media
exposes couples to conflicts that, in many cases, results in family fights hence indicating the
negative impact of social media when it comes to issues of relationships.
Moreover, for these premises to support the given conclusion, we should assume that
there is no additional information to counter the given negative impacts of social media in this
article. From the article, we can also argue that the article did not provide hypothetical results to
conclude based on data.
Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., & Hall, B. J. (2016). Fear of missing out, need for
touch, anxiety, and depression are related to problematic smartphone use. Computers in
Human Behavior, 63, 509-516. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.079
Chae, J. (2018). Reexamining the relationship between social media and happiness: The effects
of various social media platforms on reconceptualized happiness. Telematics and
Informatics, 35(6), 1656-1664.
Turner, M., & Prince, E. (2020, July). Being together apart: does communication via social
media help or harm romantic relationships? In International Conference on HumanComputer Interaction (pp. 584-597). Springer, Cham.
Is Marijuana Use Safe?
Dr. Christopher Foster
PHI103 Informal Logic
Ashford University
Modeled example for week 3 assignment
With many states legalizing both medical and recreational marijuana, an important
question for voters, legislators, and potential users is whether marijuana is safe. There have been
many studies done on the topic, with findings on both sides. The focus of this paper will be to
present scholarly research on both sides of the question and to evaluate the quality of each. To
provide the most reliable information possible, I have chosen to present the findings of metastudies on each side of the question of the safety of marijuana use. I will present and evaluate the
reasoning used by each and conclude with a discussion of the value of different types of sources
in terms of the degree of support that they provide for their conclusions.
Presentation of an Argument that Marijuana Use is Safe
A large meta-study was performed by a group of researchers at UC San Diego focusing
on the long-term neurocognitive effects of cannabis use (Grant, Gonzales, Carey, Natarajan, &
Wolfson, 2003). The study analyzed other studies that had been done, comparing data for 623
cannabis users against 409 non- or minimal users. The researchers found that chronic users of
marijuana showed minor decreases in performance in the categories of learning and
remembering, but no other significant effects. The study concludes that cannabis is probably safe
for use for medical purposes (Grant et al., 2003).
The primary argument given may be represented in standard form as follows:
Premise 1: Combining data from studies that have been done on the effects of marijuana
use on cognitive function allows for a large data pool from which to draw strong
Premise 2: In six out of the eight cognitive areas studied, namely: reaction time, attention,
language, abstraction/executive, perceptual, and motor skills, no significant cognitive
impairment was found among marijuana users.
Premise 3: In the two areas in which cognitive impairment was found, learning and
memory, the effect was small and could have been affected by sample bias.
Premise 4: Medical use of marijuana tends not to involve long term use, resulting in even
more minor if any, ill effects.
Premise 5: Medical use of marijuana is likely to have benefits that outweigh minor
amounts of harm.
Conclusion: Medical use of marijuana has “an acceptable margin of safety under the
more limited conditions of exposure that would likely obtain in a medical setting” (Grant
et al., 2003).
The reasoning presented appears to be strong since the premises appear adequately to
support the idea that the potential harms are minor and either don’t apply to medical use or are
outweighed by the benefits to be gained therefrom. The article also attempts to explain away the
negative effects in learning and memory, suggesting that they could be due to selection bias in
the articles reviewed or due to an insufficient time of non-use of the drug prior to the study
(Grant et al., 2003). If the article is right about that, then perhaps there is no significant
neurological harm even in those two areas. The article supplies substantial support for its
premises, since there is a large data pool, all of it gathered from scientific studies.
However, the article points out that there are limitations of the research, such as different
lengths of time within the studies since the last use of the drug and the question of whether long
term marijuana users may not have the same initial cognitive abilities as those that do not,
making causal inferences more difficult (Grant et al., 2003).
Presentation of an Argument that Marijuana Use is Unsafe
On the other side of the issue, a study from 2016 seems to demonstrate the exact opposite
conclusion. The authors show that use of marijuana, especially by teens, has many long term
negative effects and is associated with a multitude of including physical, psychiatric,
neurological, and social impairments (Feeney & Kampman, 2016). The argument presented can
be summarized as follows:
Premise 1: Marijuana is addictive (Volkow, Baler, Compton, & Weiss, 2014).
Premise 2: Marijuana causes breathing problems (Tashkin, Baldwin, Sarafian, Dubinett,
& Roth, 2002).
Premise 3: Marijuana may increase the likelihood of developing schizophrenia and other
psychiatric symptoms (Arseneault, Cannon, Witton, & Murray, 2004).
Premise 4: Marijuana causes long terms harms cognitive abilities, including attention,
memory, processing speed, and executive functioning (Thames, Arbid, & Sayegh, 2014).
Premise 5: Marijuana use by teens is correlated with lower academic achievement, job
performance, and social functioning in relationships (Palamar et al., 2014).
Premise 6: Marijuana use results in decreased psychomotor function, and reaction time,
causing driving risks (Neavyn, Blohm, Babu, & Bird, 2014).
Conclusion: Marijuana use can cause physical, psychological, neurological, and social
harm, especially when used by adolescents.
The reasoning in the article seems quite strong. The conclusion seems to follow from the
premises since it mostly summarizes the research findings. Furthermore, the premises are well
supported since they are all based in scientific research studies.
However, there are some limitations in the strength of the reasoning (as noted within the
study). One of those limitations is that we are not sure in all cases if marijuana use is the cause of
the impairment observed. For example, the article notes that the correlation with schizophrenia
may or may not be causal (Feeney & Kampman, 2016). Furthermore, most of the studies focus
on the use of marijuana by teens; therefore, these results may have limited application to
discussions of marijuana use among adults, especially those using it for medical purposes.
Evaluation of Arguments:
Both of these scholarly sources supply quite a bit of evidence for their conclusions by
analyzing the data from multiple scientific studies. Non-scholarly sources, by contrast, frequently
make claims that are not supported at all, or are only supported by other partisan sources. One of
my non-scholarly sources does not explicitly cite any research at all, but only implies that it
exists (Foundation, n.d.). This allows non-scholarly sources, such as advocative web pages, to
make it sound as though the case for their position is much stronger than it actually is.
However, as we have seen, even scholarly sources are capable of contradicting each
other. This would not be surprising in non-scholarly sources, especially between sources with
advocative intent. It is more surprising to find contradictory results within scholarly sources.
However, there are possible ways to resolve these contradictions. One possibility comes
from noting that the first meta-study combined the data from its studies. Some of these specific
studies showed greater and lesser scores for various neurocognitive skills among marijuana
users, and the meta-study’s methodology allowed them to cancel each other out. The study on
the contrary side, on the other hand, simply cited one source each for the various harms, which
may have enabled the authors to select studies to cite that showed results more favorable to their
preferred conclusion.
Thus, while non-scholarly sources can be clearly partisan and non-objective, pulling from
whichever sources, reliable or not, that support their point of view, even scholarly sources are
able to analyze data in ways that are far from neutral.
Studying the reasoning on each side of the issue has been enlightening. Though there is
still debate, even among scholars, about the safety of marijuana use, studying the reasoning from
high quality sources gives perspective about the type of evidence that is being used on each side,
allowing one to assess which evidence is more reliable and provides more support for its
conclusion. In the future, I am more likely to go to scholarly sources over popular ones and to
analyze a multitude of scholarly results to understand the issue from a more well informed point
of view.
Arseneault, L., Cannon, M., Witton, J., & Murray, R. M. (2004). Causal association between
cannabis and psychosis: Examination of the evidence. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 184(2), 110-117. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.184.2.110
Feeney, K. E., & Kampman, K. M. (2016). Adverse effects of marijuana use. The Linacre
Quarterly, 83(2), 174-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00243639.2016.1175707
Foundation for a Drug Free World. (n.d.). The truth about marijuana: Behind the smoke screen.
Retrieved from http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/marijuana/behind-the-smokescreen.html
Grant, I., Gonzales, R., Carey, C., Natarajan, L., & Wolfson, T. (2003). Non-acute (residual)
neurocognitive effects of cannabis use: A meta-analytic study. Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society, 9(5), 679-689.
Neavyn, M. J., Blohm, E., Babu, K. M., & Bird, S. B. (2014). Medical marijuana and driving: A
review. Journal of Medical Toxicology, 10(3), 269-279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181014-0393-4
Palamar, J. J., Fenstermaker, M., Kamboukos, D., Ompad, D. C., Cleland, C. M., & Weitzman,
M. (2014). Adverse psychosocial outcomes associated with drug use among US high
school seniors: A comparison of alcohol and marijuana. American Journal of Drug and
Alcohol Abuse, 40(6), 438-446. https://doi.org/10.3109/00952990.2014.943371
Tashkin, D. P., Baldwin, G. C., Sarafian, T., Dubinett, S., & Roth, M. D. (2002). Respiratory and
immunologic consequences of marijuana smoking. Journal of Clinical
Pharmacology, 42(S1), 71S-81S. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1552-4604.2002.tb06006.x
Thames, A. D., Arbid, N., & Sayegh, P. (2014). Cannabis use and neurocognitive functioning in
a non-clinical sample of users. Addictive Behaviors, 39(5), 994-999.
Volkow, N. D., Baler, R. D., Compton, W. M., & Weiss, S. R. B. (2014). Adverse health effects
of marijuana use. New England Journal of Medicine, 370, 2219-2227.

Purchase answer to see full

error: Content is protected !!