Writing Critically: Supporting/Opposing an Argument 40 points - Essay Example

? Writing Critically: Supporting/Opposing an Argument September 25, Introduction Everyone has the freedomto one’s culture-based opinion. The research delves into the misconception regarding eXtreme Programming software. The research delves into the veracity of the misconception. Misconceptions do occur, especially regarding eXtreme Programming capacity. Discussion Support for Ambler’s Argument I support the Ambler’s argument stating “there are several misconceptions that people seem to have regarding modeling in eXtreme Programming (XP) project (http://www.agilemodeling.com/). ” I steadfastly believe it is correct in its assertions and I can support and develop my claims with evidence. Discussing one of the misconceptions, the Ambler detractors insist that the programmer does not create a model in eXtreme Programming. The detractors based their biased opinions on people who are experts in eXtreme Programming (XP). The author classifies forum opinions as second-hand knowledge. Just like other issues, there will always be differing opinions on any topics. Thus, one person will rely on seemingly “expert” opinions. However, the individual should have verified the reasons behind such self-proclaimed expert. The individual should have verified the “expert” credentials of the opinion giver. Author evidences his own expert comment by stating that the “expert” opinions were given in an internet forum. Anyone can register in the forum. A forum is usually a free for all discussion of any topic under the sun. Consequently, every member can give a comment on any topic. Consequently, several experts give their professional opinion on the thread topic. However, another misinformed or uneducated forum member gives one’s biased opinion on the topic. Further, there are several reasons for the biased opinions. First, the “expert” is selling a competitors’ products and services. The competitor earns affiliate commissions from selling another product or service. The “expert” uses the simple marketing strategy of creating “let the buyer beware” sales presentations. Like in normal sales situations, the prospective customers should not take the seller’s presentation hook line & sinker, as bible truth. Instead, the prospective customer should do one’s own research on the product. Having mentioned that, the forum members should not accept the comments of the forum “expert”. Instead, the forum members should conduct one’s own research on the eXtreme Programming’s capacities. Furthermore, Ambler states that the questionable sources of information generate mediocre eXtreme Programming knowledge. The individual gathers information from online resources. However, many of the online book authors are not experts in their field. The author may have gathered information from individuals who are not experts in the field of eXtreme Programming. Thus, the theory of garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) crops up. When the author gathers wrong information, the author creates a book that offers unwarranted concepts or postulates. To resolve the issue, the book readers should scrutinize the book author’s credentials. The reader should determine if the author is an expert in the filed of eXtreme Programming. If the author convincingly shows unquestionable knowledge on eXtreme Programming, then the reader can accept the proposed concepts of the author. On the other hand, the reader should take the views of a person who is not an expert on the topic as below the level of professional opinion. In both cases, the book reader should refer to other professional books on the topic. The reader has the democratic right to gather differing concepts on the subject. Next, the reader can do experiments on the topic in order to ascertain the veracity of all the opinions. After a painstaking research of many related professional resources, the reader can finally state, “the author is correct”. Similarly, after researching other authors’ inputs, the reader can state that, “Ambler is correct in stating that the current misconception is just that, misconception. Misconceptions are meant to be immediately crumpled, stepped on, rolled into a ball and thrown into the nearest waste basket or burned. Evidence of misconception Scrutinizing deeper, there is evidence to prove that a programmer does create a model in eXtreme Programming. Han Loon insists that “Since eXtreme Programming specifies 12 practices and many are very different to the base practices, the assessor needs to select the relevant eXtreme Programming practices and minimal work products and the relevant attributes and base practices in a process assessment MODEL (Loon, 2007; p.144).” The programmer needs to understand the quoted concepts in order to successfully implement a valid mapping or translation between the model and the eXtreme Programming implementation. Further, Gopalaswamy Ramesh theorizes that the automation of the eXtreme Programming model is grounded on unit test cases that are created prior to the coding phase, codes are used for test cases and written to assure successful test cases and all units run at full capacity. What is unique about the eXtreme Programming model is that the automation needs are present at the same time the product needs are present (Ramesh, 2006). Further, the contention that there is no model in eXtreme Programming is unsustainable. The issue of no model crops up from complex computer software research. Eoghan Cassey reiterates that computer networks complicate reliability considerations because multiple systems and mechanisms are involved. Because of the lack of consistency in determining the reliability of digital evidence, analysts need a consistent process of referring to the relative certainty of different types of digital evidence (2004, p. 175).” Thus, the “experts” define the change in software programming as an automatic absence of a model. More importantly, the majority opinion significantly veers towards Ambler’s stance. The above reliable sources strongly indicate that the misconception is a mere opinion. In our current democratic society, everyone is freely entitled to give one’s own biased opinion. The opinion could be grounded in one’s culture. One individual’s culture includes accepting all opinions at face value. Another culture focuses on asking second person’s opinion and a third person’s opinion. The majority opinion is considered the popular opinion, but not necessarily the correct answer. During the ancient times, the popular opinion indicated the sun revolved around the earth (Koupelis, 2010). During this ancient time period, Ptolemy explained that the sun revolved around the Earth. However, Copernicus countered by stating that the Earth revolves around the sun. Today, the Copernicus concept is the popular opinion. Conclusion According to the above discussion, all persons are democratically entitled to one’s culture-based opinion. There are misconceptions regarding eXtreme Programming software. The misconceptions should be booted out of the scene. Evidently, misconceptions may crop up, including the eXtreme Programming environment’s capacity. References Ambler, S., (2009). Disciplined Agile Delivery, retrieved September 27, 2012 from: http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/agileModelingXP.htm Cassey, E. (2004). Digital Evidence . New York: Academic Press. Koupelis, T. (2010). In Quest of the Stars and Galaxies. New York: Jones & Bartlett Press. Loon, H. (2007). Process Assessment and Improvement: A Practical Guide. New York: Han Loon Press. Ramesh, G. (2006). Software Testing: Principles and Practices. New York: Pearson Press. Read More