Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Critical Analysis Forms CRT/205 Version 7 Alastair Harris

Associate Level Material


Critical Analysis Forms
Fill out one form for each source. Source 1 Title and Citation: The Accessibilityof GunsLeadsto GunCrime Guns and Crime, 2012

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. Explain your reasoning.

Would Americans be safer if more people owned guns?

It seems very bias to state It should be obvious that easy access to deadly weapons is responsible for the deaths of too many Americans. It should be obvious is saying if you had a different opinion you are wrong.

Well, don't other countries have a problem similar to ours? What is the problem the ability to carry a gun or the violence that happens with the gun. Yes I do find the source credible. The facts that are given are from reliable sources. An expression used to suggest that there is evidence or authority for a claim without actually citing such evidence or authority is a proof surrogate. A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. Rather than conferring protection, guns in the home are associated with three times the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning. Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. Explain your reasoning.

Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. Explain your reasoning. State one argument made by the author.

peer pressure argument. It should be obvious that easy access to deadly weapons is responsible for the deaths of too many Americans. It is like saying if you do not think the same you are not smart. But people say having a gun in our house is necessary for protection. If someone breaks into our house, shouldn't we have a gun to defend ourselves? And, if we shoot someone like that, isn't it a "justifiable homicide" rather than a crime? Surely having a gun in our house makes us safer?

Critical Analysis Forms CRT/205 Version 7 Alastair Harris

Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.

Premise is if someone breaks in your house you have the right to shoot them to protect yourself. The conclusion is justifiable homicide" rather than a crime. I believe the authors argument is strong. The author gives a lot of facts to back up their opinion.

Is the authors argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this. Does the author use moral reasoning? Explain how you determined this.

10

The author uses Moral reasoning. For example , I worry about my kids, too. Are they in greater danger because we have a gun in our house? Their friends' parents also own guns. Should I worry about that, too? The last quote is a great example of moral reasoning.

Source 2 Title and Citation: The Accessibilityof GunsProtectsLives Guns and Crime, 2012

Identify the principal issue presented by the source.

Empowering people to protect themselves and others against criminals makes perfect sense, and the more law-abiding citizens carrying guns, the safer Americans will be. Anti-gun advocates often exaggerate the risks of mass shoot-outs or accidental killings. How does the author know that all anti-gun advocates exaggerate the risk of gun use.

Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. Explain your reasoning.

Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. Explain your reasoning. Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning.

Every argument I have seen opposing the right to conceal carry is mere hysteria about guns in general and not rooted in reality. Vague statement
I did not find the source credible. The reason I did not find the source credible because it seem as if they all pointed the finger at the opposing group instead of sticking to the facts. Dysphemism is seen in Empowering people to protect themselves and others against criminals makes perfect sense, and the more law-abiding citizens carrying guns, the safer Americans will be. Anti-gun advocates often exaggerate the risks of mass shoot-outs or accidental killings. But, in fact, concealed-carry permit holders have better safety records than police officers, and more criminals are killed by citizens defending themselves than are killed by law enforcement

Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. Explain your reasoning.

Critical Analysis Forms CRT/205 Version 7 Alastair Harris

Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. Explain your reasoning.

Nationalism is seem in the following paragraph :The ability of a man to bear arms, whether his antagonist be foreign or domestic, a rogue government or a savage criminal, is a fundamental right of being a free man. That right is no less important, and many would argue even more so, than the right to free speech, assembly, press, or the freedom to worship God without government supervision, permission, or persecution. A man has not just the right, but the inherent obligation to protect his children, family, neighbors, community, and nation. People are alive today because a fellow citizen was able to use a firearm to save their lives. The premise is that people are alive today because . The conclusion of argument citizen was able to use a firearm to save their lives.

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? Explain how you determined this.

10