Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric by Nancy Canvander and Howard Kahane (1200 words)

It has been forcefully argued that very young children are tender shoots who need to find out the bad features of their society (as of life in general) rather gradually, so that it would be wrong to tell them too quickly that quite a few presidents (including such "heroes" as Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy) had mistresses, or that America's history is filled with nasty deeds and steeped in blood and conquest.  The point of these arguments is that we don't want to destroy the pride and loyalty of the young, and we don't want to make future citizens into cynics.
a.  Do you agree or disagree with this line of reasoning?  Defend your answer.
b.  Does it tend to undercut one of the themes of this chapter--that less indoctrination means better education?
c.  At what age, if ever, should students be given a completely accurate and balanced account of these matters?  Why?
d.  It has been argued that, in a society such as exists today in the United States, where several religions flourish and there is no single moral code accepted by all, public schools should not attempt to teach students about alleged values, customs, or traditions of the culture.  What is your opinion on this question and, of course, why do you think so?

a. Do you agree or disagree with this line of reasoning? Defend your answer. I don’t think it is wrong to tell children that important figures in history, or in current events, had faults. Children should be given an account of important figures in a balanced way that does not completely whitewash the events. At the same time, the age and developmental level of the child should be taken into consideration. For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt was an inspiration for a nation at war, but he also lied to the American people about his Polio. Telling children this fact could help them develop a more balanced worldview....

This is only a preview of the solution. Please use the purchase button to see the entire solution