<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Assignment 1 by </title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg</link>
      <description>Makayla Rempel</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2021-02-07 16:59:12 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2025-08-18 16:13:14 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>Post #1 Title: Assignment 1</title>
         <author>makaylarempel</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1173939332</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Made by Makayla Rempel, working individually.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2021-02-07 17:03:19 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1173939332</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Post #2: Red Flag (Confirmation Bias)</title>
         <author>makaylarempel</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1174219199</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div><br><strong>Definition</strong><br>Confirmation Bias: This red flag includes deliberately searching or taking note of evidence that gives credit to ones pre-existing beliefs, and disregarding evidence that goes against it. <br><br><strong>Connections<br></strong>This article demonstrates the <strong>confirmation bias</strong> red flag because it is discussing the possibility of the Bigfoot being real, but is only using eyewitness accounts to back its claims. The scientists mentioned in the article appear to only mention the eye witness accounts, the lore and myths behind yeti creatures, and state that they've ""Given the scientific evidence that I have examined, I'm convinced there's a creature out there that is yet to be identified,". <strong>Skepticism</strong> has not been applied as it should be, but instead they have dived into why they believe and only using flimsy evidence to support their claim, rather than first consider why it may not be true.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/forensic-expert-says-bigfoot-is-real/#close" />
         <pubDate>2021-02-07 19:11:06 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1174219199</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Post #3: Red Flag (Red Herring)</title>
         <author>makaylarempel</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1174263723</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div><br><strong>Definition</strong><br>Red Herring: Information that is irrelevant and is brought up to act as a distraction from the initial point and lacking evidence.  <br><br><strong>Connection</strong><br>This article demonstrates the <strong>red herring</strong> red flag for a number of reasons. In this official transcript of the presidential debate in 2016, Donald Trump responds to more than one question by discussing completely different topics. When asked about his comments towards women, he begins to bring up his plans to "defeat ISIS and keep America safe". This is an act of diverting the attention away from one topic and towards another in his favour. <br><br></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/transcript-second-debate.html" />
         <pubDate>2021-02-07 19:32:49 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1174263723</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Post #4: Red Flag (Proof by Verbosity)</title>
         <author>makaylarempel</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1174483342</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div><br><strong>Definition</strong><br>Proof by Verbosity: This red flag means applying a quantity over quality approach to make your argument seem comprehensible by overloading others with information so that it becomes too confusing to rebut. <br><br><strong>Connection<br></strong>This video demonstrates the <strong>proof by verbosity</strong> red flag because Donald Trump, the former US president, is seen countering a simple question with a confusing speech. The question itself requires a yes or no answer, but Trump, instead of answering the question, dives into a tangent using vague information. He begins listing cities and events and claims "so many people" thanked him, but he never actually gives details or answers to support what he is saying, and instead is overloading the interviewer with information that is difficult to grasp long enough to respond to.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aFo_BV-UzI" />
         <pubDate>2021-02-07 21:41:40 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1174483342</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Post #5: Red Flag (Appeal to Authority)</title>
         <author>makaylarempel</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1174503474</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div><br><strong>Definition</strong></div><div>Appeal to Authority: Using hierarchy and popular likeable figures to show to appeal to the claim rather than use evidence. <br><br><strong>Connection<br></strong>This image demonstrates the <strong>appeal to authority</strong> red flag because Jennifer Anniston, a well-known celebrity, is seen advertising a skin care product. It is actively appealing to a large target audience, her statement endorsing the product with the intention of saying "you too can look like this". </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://padlet-uploads.storage.googleapis.com/1001615435/c0888657b6357cf7d4b271ce3e1d2764/9683205bd0c11d30e4f9fb80c27e7412.jpg" />
         <pubDate>2021-02-07 21:56:28 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1174503474</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Post #6: Red Flag (Confusing Correlation with Causation)</title>
         <author>makaylarempel</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1174507059</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div><br><strong>Definition</strong><br>Confusing Correlation with Causation: When similar patterns are found in unrelated subjects but are used as evidence of causation, when in reality there is no connection between the two subjects. <br><br><strong>Connection</strong><br>This article demonstrates the confusion between <strong>correlation with causation</strong> because the article talks about soda causing violent tendencies in teenagers. They did a study and found that the teens who drank more soda have committed more acts of violence and were more likely to carry weapon than teens who drank less soda. The <strong>flaw</strong> in this study is that they blame the soda for the violence without first looking towards more logical factors, like ones financial situation or home life.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-checkup/post/soda-boosts-violence-among-teens-study-finds/2011/10/21/gIQADmsY3L_blog.html" />
         <pubDate>2021-02-07 21:59:06 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1174507059</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Post #7: Reasons For Belief (Patternicity)</title>
         <author>makaylarempel</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1177669196</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div><br><strong>Definition</strong><br>Patternicity: The act of humans discovering and seeking images and patterns that don't actually exist.<br><br><strong>Connection<br></strong>This image demonstrates agenticity because as you look at it you can see what we recognize is a face in the clouds. Some even may take it further and say it's a sign, or God, or a deceased loved one. However, it is just a cloud that happens to appear humanoid.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://padlet-uploads.storage.googleapis.com/1001615435/083b6e4a2366d7f30383038d68e690a0/faceincloud.jpg" />
         <pubDate>2021-02-08 15:58:09 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1177669196</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Post #8: Reasons For Belief (Emotional Connection)</title>
         <author>makaylarempel</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1177678591</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div><br><strong>Definition</strong><br>Emotional connection: When someone believes in something due to an emotional attachment they may have, even if the something they believe in is illogical. <br><br><strong>Connection<br></strong>In this video, the emotional connection red flag is demonstrated through the likes of a woman going to a medium about her late brother. The woman believes what the medium is telling her due to the emotional connection she has to her deceased brother, and therefore hearing what she wants to hear and believing it to be true.<strong><br></strong><br></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6tB6OccRDs" />
         <pubDate>2021-02-08 15:59:41 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1177678591</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Post #9: Reasons For Belief (Agenticity )</title>
         <author>makaylarempel</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1177712590</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div><br><strong>Definition</strong><br>Agenticity: Applying meaning to invisible forces in order to believe in something.<br><br><strong>Connection<br></strong>The image below is a form of agenticity. Religion overall can be used as an example of agenticity due to the invisible forces that we are unable to see with our eyes, and yet we make decisions and form beliefs around those invisible figures.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://padlet-uploads.storage.googleapis.com/1001615435/692efefaef66c947cb21822f8f9bf94d/DT10248.jpg" />
         <pubDate>2021-02-08 16:05:09 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1177712590</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Post #10: Critical Thinking Process Response</title>
         <author>makaylarempel</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1180073609</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>I chose to evaluate the article about <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-checkup/post/soda-boosts-violence-among-teens-study-finds/2011/10/21/gIQADmsY3L_blog.html">soda causing teen violence. </a></div><div> </div><div><strong>Define Problem (extraordinary claim):  </strong> </div><div>Does drinking soda cause teenagers to become violent? <br> </div><div><strong>Gather Information:  </strong> </div><div>This article is published by the washington post, describing the study that was conducted by Sara Solnick (University of Vermont) and David Hemenway (Director of Harvard Injury Control Research Center and the Youth Violence Prevention Center). They claimed that their research showed that teenagers who drank more soda displayed more violent tendencies. The study was done on 1 800 teenagers within Boston schools. One of the claims from Solnick is that it could be due to caffeine or sugar levels. <br>However multiple studies have shown that those who consume diets with low-nutritional value are more likely to be poor due to convenience and cost. Teens who are poor are more likely to drink soda and have violent tendencies.</div><div> </div><div><strong>Evaluate Evidence:</strong> </div><div>Although both have university credentials and Hemenway is director of the youth prevention center, their study is questionable. Their method of study was simply asking the teenagers the questions, and nothing beyond that, and they had failed to consider other factors that could be related to soda and violence. <br> </div><div><strong>Recognize Assumptions, Emotions, Biases: </strong> </div><div>The assumption had been pre-made that soda does cause violence in teens. Solnick and Hemenway began the research with the objective to “investigate the association” between soda and violent teens but when applying their research, they demonstrated a bias towards their own question by not taking into consideration other hypotheticals and theories. </div><div> </div><div><strong>Synthesize Evidence, Identify Alternatives:</strong> </div><div><em>Alternative solution 1:</em> Soda does cause violence in teens, supported by Solnick and Hemenway’s questionnaire. </div><div><em>Alternative solution 2: </em> Soda does not cause violence in teens, supported by multiple studies that have shown that peoples who's diets are low-nutrition are more likely to be poor, which would lead into the socioeconomic factors that could tie together the violence and soda drinking amongst teens. <br> </div><div><strong>Select Best Alternative:</strong> <br>I conclude that soda does not cause violence in teens. </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2021-02-09 02:34:56 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/makaylarempel/dbda4ms65lkb9iqg/wish/1180073609</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
