evidence

The learners’ ability to write a well-organized argumentative essay has gained prominence within the last decades. The multiple intelligences play a significant role in enhancing the precision of both language and thought during the writing process. The current study aimed at investigating the possible relationship between linguistic and logical intelligences and the frequency of informal fallacies and evidence types in Iranian EFL learners’ argumentative essays. To the end, a total of 110 upper-intermediate EFL learners were asked to respond to the relevant items of Multiple Intelligences Developmental Assessment Scale (MIDAS) and to write an argumentative essay. The informal fallacies and four categories of evidence were identified using two models of argumentation. Among several categories of informal fallacies and evidence, only statistical evidence was absent in argumentative essays. The results of Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient revealed a significant relationship between the participants’ linguistic and logical intelligences and the frequency of informal fallacies and evidence types in their argumentation. However, no significant difference was found between male and female EFL learners in terms of the frequency of informal fallacies and evidence types in their argumentative essays. The findings contribute to enhancing the efficiency of writing materials and courses by considering the learners’ individual differences.

One integral constituent of argumentative writing is the capability of drawing upon relevant evidence to endorse an argument, a practice that itself necessitates elaborate reading and writing processes. Taking the position that writing can be an important skill to foster knowledge building pedagogy; this article explores changes made to argumentation behavior in L2 essay writing composed by two groups of language learners attending an integrated writing course. Thirty-one language learners as participants of the experimental group used two popular news mobile applications online and offline for reading as a pre-task activity that made them outperform their counterparts in the control group in terms of using factual evidence, namely statistics, incidence, findings, and quotations. The statistical analyses disclosed a significant difference in the overall writing ability of the two groups in the experimental group’s favor. This outperformance partly resulted from richer content presentation in essays written by those who had read through mobile news applications and used more facts in their essays. Findings of the present paper can shed new light on how to utilize digital materials for the purpose of enriching EFL writing content.

Many people in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic monotheistic traditions testify to their experience of being commanded by God to do something or to be a certain way. Is this kind of testimony from experience credible in some cases, and, if so, on what ground? The main thesis of this article is that it is credible in some cases and a suitable ground is available in the morally purifying experience of the human conscience. The article looks to the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Qur’an for relevant testimony to the importance of righteous divine commanding experienced by humans. The relevant commands are not abstract or merely theoretical but grounded in human moral experience and potentially motivating for righteous action. The article doubts that God would be God if there were no divine commanding given directly to receptive people in their moral experience. It contends that God would not be a morally righteous guide of the divine kind needed for the worthiness of worship by humans in the absence of God’s commanding people directly in their experience.

Evidence-based policymaking stands at the forefront of contemporary governance, where data and evidence have emerged as indispensable allies in shaping effective and informed decisions. This article embarks on a comprehensive exploration of the challenges and critical issues encountered when data assumes the role of evidence in policy formulation. The foundation of this investigation is rooted in the extensive body of literature on evidence-based policy-making. We delve into the scholarly discourse, tracing the evolution of policy formulation from relying on intuition to being guided by empirical insights. As we navigate through this intellectual landscape, the crucial role of data as a catalyst for this transformation becomes apparent. Delving deeper, we will explore the intricacies of data and the rise of big data. Once regarded as mere numbers, data now represents the currency of the information age. Its volume, velocity, and variety characterize it, making it a powerful tool for generating evidence and formulating policies. As we explore its features, we uncover the potential of data to unlock unprecedented insights and inform governance with empirical precision. To conduct a comprehensive examination of the difficulties encountered when utilizing data as evidence in policy-making, we employ a rigorous scoping review methodology. Through meticulous screening, we have identified and analyzed 36 exemplary articles that offer invaluable insights into the multifaceted landscape of data-driven governance. These articles provide a comprehensive overview of the challenges, which can be grouped into three distinct clusters: technical challenges arising from data complexities, legal and privacy dilemmas intertwined with governance, and the formidable issues faced by policymakers. Our discussion unravels the intricate web of challenges, ranging from data quality and integration to confidentiality, ethics, and governance issues. We delve into the intricacies of data access, the fight against bias, and the challenges posed by data volume and complexity. Simultaneously, we explore the complex legal landscape of data ownership, security, sharing, and compliance. The challenges policymakers face in fostering data-driven cultures, navigating resource constraints, and communicating data-driven insights are brought to the forefront. In conclusion, our exploration sheds light on the complex challenges and crucial issues that underlie the use of data as evidence in evidence-based policy-making. This research underscores the transformative power of data in governance and emphasizes the challenges and pressing issues associated with using data as evidence in policymaking.

In the case of “Iran’s Foreign Military Sales” (Case B-1), which encompasses six claims and a counterclaim, proceedings have continued for over four decades. A focal point in the process of filing numerous applications and the rulings issued in this case has consistently been the issue of evidence and the burden of proof. This qualitative research aims to address the fundamental question of the approaches taken by the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal  regarding evidence and the burden of proof, as well as the implications of these approaches on the adjudication of Case B-1. The findings indicate that the Tribunal, in each case, has adhered not only to general legal principles - such as ‘actori incumbit onus probandi’ -but also to the unique circumstances and specific conditions of each case, such as the accessibility of evidence, in determining the allocation of the burden of proof. As the parties strive to substantiate the credibility of their evidence before the Tribunal using general principles of international law, which are potentially recognized as applicable law by the Tribunal, they also seek to undermine the credibility of the opposing party’s evidence through various arguments. It is essential for Iran to enhance its precision in referencing the submitted documents and to clarify the technical dimensions, as well as to ensure compliance with the Tribunal’s standards in future rulings, in order to achieve its objectives in other ongoing cases.