本文主要内容是罗伊·摩根报告分析，该报告的目的是评估反对使用Burqua或Hijab的论点，如Advance Australia在其文章“禁止使用Burqua”中所提出的，该文章关注的是Advance Australia利用的Roy Morgan的研究。该报告试图整理来自文章的标准化和修辞分析的结果，以及一些由初级研究员做的事实核查。报告认为，“禁止使用Burqua”确实提出了一些有趣的观点，但它具有极大的误导性和过度说服力，而且在事实核查方面也相当宽松。本篇澳洲管理学论文代写文章由澳洲论文人EducationRen教育网整理，供大家参考阅读。
The purpose of the report is to assess arguments presented against the use of the Burqua or the Hijab as presented by Advance Australia in its article “Ban the Burqua” focusing on the Roy Morgan Study that Advance Australia has made use of. The report attempts to collate findings from a standardization and rhetorical analysis of the article, and some more fact checking done by a junior researcher. The report argues that “Ban the Burqua” does make some interesting points but is vastly misleading and over-persuasive and quite loose on the fact checking as well. The report and recommendations are presented in order to assist the Member for Federal Parliament, Clare Reznik, in her counter response to Advance Australia’s “Ban the Burqa” campaign and general information on banning the burqua as well. Recommendations are made separately.
The Roy Morgan report never claims that 81 percent of the Australians hate the burquo and want to ban it, and yet the claim made by Advance Australia is that 81 percent of the Australians want to band the buurqua. The truth is that 81 percent of the people don’t want to see others wear the burqua when they are in court, not in general public. The use of this misleading claim shows that Advance Australia has been highly unethical.
In presenting the statistics from Roy Morgan report, it is critical that the data should be presented in a logical way and Advance Australia must have stuck to only facts. However Advance Australia seem to focus on using emoted rhetoric’s that one would positively associate with only a made up paper, and not a fact checked one.
What is presented in the Roy Morgan report and what is presented in the article of Advance Australia does not connect. Advance Australia in their article has made very tall claims based on their own interpretation of the Roy Morgan report and this is unethical. Recommendations to Parliamentarian, Claire Reznik are based directly on this assessment and findings.