Site Loader

Appendix E Critical Analysis Forms Fill out one form for each source. Source 1 The “Necessary Evil” Argument Does Not Justify Abortion Forsythe, Clarke D. “The ‘Necessary Evil’ Argument Does Not Justify Abortion. ” Opposing Viewpoints: Abortion. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library-Univ of Phoenix. 9 Jan. 2010 . 1 Identify the principal issue presented by the source. The myths behind “Necessary Evil” of abortions and how referring to these abortions as “necessary evils” attempts to put minds at ease from a moral standpoint. Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. I believe no bias exist; he appears to show both sides of the abortion topic Example 1: “The myth of abortion as a necessary evil has serious implications for future public debate. First, it means that abortion opponents have won the essential debate that the unborn is a human being and not mere tissue. ” Example 2: he states “Second, it means that the ideological arguments of both sides (“choice” versus “child”) often miss the much more practical concerns of Americans.

There are other examples but these are just two 3 Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this. I feel Mr. Forsythe was very to the point in his paper; I feel he made strong clear points. 4 Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning. Yes, I believe the source to be credible. He stated his opinion but stated both sides of the argument and used good research. 5 Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.

No I feel there was no rhetorical devices used due to the fact he kept everything on the level and only gave to the point facts. 6 Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. If any fallacy was used, I believe it would be Begging the Question due to the way he used what he called myths to make his argument 7 State one argument made by the author. “First, it means that abortion opponents have won the essential debate that the unborn is a human being and not mere tissue.

In fact, the whole thrust of the “choice” argument admits this and seeks to sideline Americans’ moral qualms by telling Americans that, even if it is a human life, the most that can be done is to persuade women not to have abortions. ” 8 Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument. Premises – “Instead, many Americans, therefore, may see abortion as “necessary” to avert “the back alley. ” In this sense, the notion of legal abortion as a “necessary evil” is based on a series of myths widely disseminated since the 1960s. These myths captured the public mind and have yet to be rebutted. Conclusion – “But a renewal of the public dialogue won’t mean much if the people are not allowed to express the public will on this issue, as they usually do in our democratic republic. In 1973, the Supreme Court claimed hegemony over the issue and created a nationwide rule of abortion on demand, preventing democratic debate and solutions. The public policy dictated by the Supreme Court collides with majority opinion and reflects the views of only the 20 percent who are committed to abortion on demand. More than twenty-six years later, that is the main reason the pot keeps boiling. ” 9

Is the author’s argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this. Valid – Conclusion is proven Sound – Premise is true Strong – Conclusion is supported 10 Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this. Yes his whole basis and reasoning behind the project is due to his moral beliefs. I believe he used sound judgment, strong points, and stated his facts well. Source 2 Title and Citation: Partial Birth Abortions Should Be Banned Deem, Rich. “Partial-Birth Abortions Should Be Banned. ” Current Controversies: The Abortion Controversy.

Ed. Emma Bernay. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library-Univ of Phoenix. 9 Jan. 2010 . 1 Identify the principal issue presented by the source. Arguing against Partial Birth Abortions and the ethics behind it, whether or not the babies feel pain and if its truly murder 2 Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. There is definite bias in this article. The author definitely states his side by clearly stating how the partial births take place and his views on it. Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this. I found no areas vague but I had a hard time reading this so absolutely nothing appeared vague to me. All arguments seem to be very clearly and strongly presented. 4 Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning. Yes I find it credible. Rich Deem, the author has worked in basic science research for years and is currently working at Cedars-Sinai MC as a researcher/specialist; therefore, he has the experience and documents statistics and credible sources. 5

Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. Using the word “gruesome” plus the way he discussed the procedure I believe is rhetorical. 6 Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. An Appeal to Belief would be the only fallacy I might would agree to due to Rich Deem stating as strongly as he has the facts. 7 State one argument made by the author. This procedure is closer to infanticide than it is to abortion. 8 Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.

Premise – “A description of the procedure and why it is never medically necessary follows” Conclusion – “Intact D&X (partial-birth abortion) should not be performed because it is needlessly risky, inhumane, and ethically unacceptable. This procedure is closer to infanticide than it is to abortion. ” 9 Is the author’s argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this. Valid – Conclusion is proven Sound – Premise is true Strong – Conclusion is supported 10 Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this.

Yes, Rich Deem uses moral reasoning showing why Partial Birth Abortions should be banned through stating the steps of these abortions and how the babies feel the pain and it is dangerous for the mother. Also stating how it could not be used for mothers’ lives being endangered due to the pregnancy because of the length of time it takes to perform this practice due to the dilation process needed to take place. Source 3 Title and Citation: A Christian Group Finds Its Place Luo, Michael. “A Christian Group Finds Its Place in the Public Schools. (Metropolitan Desk). ” The New York Times. May 24, 2006): B5(L). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library-Univ of Phoenix. 5 Jan. 2010 . 1 Identify the principal issue presented by the source. The conflict between Separation of Church and State and how some people are offended by Christianity. 2 Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. I saw absolutely no bias whatsoever by the author; the author appeared to have no feelings on this subject whatsoever and was only reporting a story. 3 Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous.

If none exist, explain how you determined this. I saw nothing vague or ambiguous. I saw absolutely nothing but an article reporting the facts and only the facts. 4 Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning. Yes, the author spoke to the sources involved in the case and reported their story. 5 Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. I saw nothing rhetorical and not sure how to explain it other than I just really saw nothing period in the story. 6 Identify and name any fallacies used by the author.

If none exist, explain how you determined this. I found no fallacies, again I’m not sure how to explain this other than the fact this article was written as a report and nothing more. I saw no true feelings in this story. 7 State one argument made by the author. School administrators must also wrestle with difficult questions about where the right to religious expression ends and the separation of church and state begins. 8 Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument. Premises – “But evangelism in a public high school, especially in New York City, can be complicated.

In a school like Stuyvesant, full of people with different beliefs and some with none at all, belonging to an evangelical group like Seekers can make members the objects of scorn from classmates and even teachers. ” Conclusion – “The event drew to a close with a final musical number. But by then there were mostly only Seekers members remaining. Gone were the unbelieving friends many had invited. Gone were those on the fringes of the group who had come. The people left were family. They danced and sang together. ” 9 Is the author’s argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak?

Explain how you determined this. Invalid – A good premise not stated Unsound – Not a good, valid premises Weak – No strong premises or conclusion 10 Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this. The author used no reasoning whatsoever; he author only used comments made by others in the article and from the Separation of Church and State. The author appeared to have no real opinion in this article at all. Source 4 Title and Citation: School Prayer Threatens Religious Liberty Americans United for Separation of Church and State. School Prayer Threatens Religious Liberty. ” Current Controversies: Civil Liberties. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale.

Apollo Library-Univ of Phoenix. 5 Jan. 2010 . 1 Identify the principal issue presented by the source. Has Religion truly been thrown out of schools completely due to Separation of Church and State. 2 Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. I saw no bias as it was hard at times to tell which side of the fence the author was on. Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this. I saw no vague or ambiguous areas; all topics were clearly stated 4 Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning. Yes, various sources were mentioned and quoted 5 Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. Some Religious Right activists charge that the courts have misinterpreted the First Amendment to remove all traces of religion from the classroom. 6

Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. Fallacy – Begging the Question – truth of conclusion is claimed 7 State one argument made by the author. ‘Has the Bible been excluded from school curriculum? In reality, the answer to these questions is “no. ” ’ 8 Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument. Premises – . “Some Religious Right activists charge that the courts have misinterpreted the First Amendment to remove all traces of religion from the classroom. Conclusion – “Indeed, most religious denominations, ranging across the theological spectrum, have issued formal statements supporting the Supreme Court’s prayer and Bible-reading decisions. These people of faith value the hard-won freedom of conscience that belongs to all of us. ” 9 Is the author’s argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this. Valid – Conclusion is proven Sound – Premise is true Strong – Conclusion is supported 10 Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this. Yes I believe the author uses moral reasoning behind his facts

Post Author: admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *