Axia College Material

Appendix E Critical Analysis Forms

Fill out one form for each source. Source 1 Title and Citation: Title and Citation: The thirst for revenge: trying to understand capital punishment Callahan, Sidney. "The thirst for revenge: trying to understand capital punishment. (Column)." Commonweal. v122. n12 (June 16, 1995): p8 (2). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library. 11 Mar. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=IACDocuments&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=OVRC&docId=A17029166&source=gale&srcprod =OVRC&usserGroupName=Apollo&version=1.0>

Identify the principal issue presented by the source.

The author is making an argument against capital punishment. The claim is that it is morally wrong and people in favor of the death penalty have the human desire for vengeance. I think the basic appeal of the death penalty is that its advocates believe that only by taking a murderers life can true justice be served. By using the word I think the author is using his personal opinion and not facts to provide proof to his argument.

Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.

Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this.

The statement, I want to penetrate this different moral universe is vague and ambiguous. The statement is unclear and has different meanings to different readers.

Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning.

I did not find the author to be credible. The argument is weak and based on rhetorical devices and fallacies. The author does not use any facts to back up his argument. Could it be that your sympathy with criminals and rebels is related to your rebellion against your authoritarian father, teacher, priest? and How can people be in favor of capital punishment? are loaded questions. Or perhaps your congenital temperamental timidity

Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.

CRT 205

read cowardice--makes you unwilling to face the fact that justice must wield a terrible swift sword. is a dysphemism. Forget the rowdies who drink and raucously celebrate executions outside the prison walls; they and others like them will turn up at any exhibition or blood sport without any inkling of what theyre about. is both a dysphemism and a stereotype. 6 Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. Those against the death penalty dont hold to their convictions because its financially cheaper or an ineffective deterrent. This is an example of a personal attack ad hominem fallacy. Could it be that your sympathy with criminals and rebels is related to your rebellion against your authoritarian father, teacher, priest? and How can people be in favor of capital punishment? are loaded questions. Forget the rowdies who drink and raucously celebrate executions outside the prison walls; they and others like them will turn up at any exhibition or blood sport without any inkling of what theyre about. is both a dysphemism and a stereotype. 7 State one argument made by the author. By enacting a state-mandated, cold-blooded destruction of a human life youve lost the moral struggle and witness against murder. You imitate the murderer and thereby let his dedication to violence, cruelty, hopelessness, and deaths final solution win the day. The premise is by enacting a state-mandated, coldblooded destruction of human life The conclusion is You imitate the murderer and thereby let his dedication to violence, cruelty, hopelessness, and deaths final solution with the day. 9 Is the authors argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this. Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this. This argument is a weak inductive argument. The premise is true and the conclusion could possibly be true. The premise does not prove the conclusion.

Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.

10

People should take the moral high ground and reject vengeance. and As for ridding the world of the impure and morally guilty who violate human norms, this impulse of moral disgust should be suppressed.

CRT 205

Source 2 Title and Citation: Capital Punishment Should Not Be Abolished Tucker, William. "Capital Punishment Should Not Be Abolished." Opposing Viewpoints: Criminal Justice. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library. 11 Mar. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&pro Dld=OVRC&docld=EJ3010120258&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=Apollo&versi On=1.0>

Identify the principal issue presented by the source. Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this. Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning. Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.

The principal issue presented is that the death penalty deters crime and therefore should not be abolished. The article contains many statements based on facts not opinion; therefore the article contains no bias.

With capital punishment in abeyance, homicides rapidly climbed to unprecedented heights. This is a vague statement. I found this article to be very credible. The author uses many facts and statistics in the article. William Tucker is a respected author. States without capital punishment are generally liberal Democratic strongholds. is a stereotype. More sophisticated evidence of deterrence is also emerging. is a proof surrogate. Does this constitute proof of deterrence? is a loaded question.

Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.

The author uses facts to prove his arguments. I did not find any fallacies in the article.

State one argument made by the author.

Executing people for murder deters other people from committing other murders. Common sense would suggest to anyone that such a deterrent effect must exist. After all, people do fear losing their lives. people do fear losing their lives. is the premise. Executing people for murder deters other people from

Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.

CRT 205

committing other murders. is the conclusion

Is the authors argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this. Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this.

I think this argument is sound, because it is a strong, valid argument. The premise is true people do fear losing their lives; therefore, the conclusion is probably true. The subject of the death penalty is a moral issue. The author uses moral reasoning and claims the United States has a moral obligation to keeping the death penalty in effect because it is proven to deter other murders.

10

Source 3 Title and Citation A U.S. Invasion of Iraq is Not Justified Zunes, Stephen. A U.S. Invasion of Iraq Is Not Justified. At Issue: Is Military Action Justified Against Nations Thought to Support Terrorism?. Ed. James Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library.11 Mar. 2009 <http://OVRC&docld=EJ3010261209&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=apollo&versi On=1.0>.

Identify the principal issue presented by the source. Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this.

The principle issue in the article is the United States reason for invading Iraq is not justified. The author did not make any biased statements. He made valid responses to arguments made by people for the invasion of Iraq.

Iraqs armed forces are barely one-third their pre-Gulf War strength. is a vague statement. The strength of Iraqs armed forces before the war is never stated in the article making it impossible to make any comparison before or after the war. Yes. It is listed at the top of the article that Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, Middle East editor of the Foreign Policy in Focus website (www.fpif.org), and the author of Tinder Box: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism. This shows he is knowledgeable on the topic of Iraq and his writings should be considered credible. The Arab foreign ministers, aware of such possibilities, warned at their meeting in Cairo that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would open the gates of hell. is a hyperbole. The phrase open the gates of hell is an exaggeration.

Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning.

Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.

CRT 205

Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.

in the chaos of a U.S. invasion and its aftermath, the chances of such weapons being smuggled out of the country into the hands of terrorists would greatly increase. This statement is a scare tactic, and no facts are stated to make it true. A U.S. invasion of Iraq is not justified because there is no credible evidence that the Iraqi government supports terrorism, has developed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or intends to harm U.S. interests through military action. there is no credible evidence that the Iraqi government supports terrorism, has developed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or intends to harm U.S. interests through military action. is the premise. A U.S. invasion of Iraq is not justified is the conclusion.

State one argument made by the author.

Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.

Is the authors argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this. Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this.

The author makes a valid, sound, strong argument with the premise supporting the conclusion. If the premise is true, then the conclusion is definitely true.

10

The author does use moral reasoning to support his position the United Sates invasion of Iraq would be unjustified.

Source 4 Title and Citation: U.S. Military Strikes on Iraq Are Justified Clinton, Bill. "U.S. Military Strikes on Iraq Are Justified." Opposing Viewpoints: The Middle East . Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library.11 Mar. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC7type=retrieve&tabID=T010&pro Dld=OVRC&docld=EJ3010229223&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=Apollo&versi On=1.0>.

Identify the principal issue presented by the source. Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.

The intervention of the United States military in Iraq is justified. We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information, and ideas.

CRT 205

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Husseins Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us

Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. is vague. The predators are not identified and are referred to as they for several more sentences before being introduced as Saddam Hussein in the speech. Yes, when this speech was given (February 17, 1998) Bill Clinton was the president of the United States. I would consider him to be a very credible source on the topic of the United States military. The speech does not contain any rhetorical devices. The use of fallacies and personal bias is evident, but I still would consider the speech to be direct and to the point. Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. This is an example of a personal attack ad hominem. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, hell use that arsenal. This statement is a scare tactic. You are the best-prepared, best-equipped, besttrained fighting force in the world. Clear example of apple polishing.

Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning.

Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.

State one argument made by the author.

Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information, and ideas. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas. is the premise. We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. is the conclusion

CRT 205

Is the authors argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this. Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this.

The argument is a strong valid argument. The premise is true and the conclusion is probably true.

10

President Clinton clearly uses moral reasoning in this argument. He is stating what he feels is necessary to protect the future well-being of the United States.

CRT 205