pos21

Sample Argument Critiques

Introduction: In this article written by Steve Bramucci, a political novelist, he outlines the opposite

points of less gun regulations, so that the reader knows arguments that an opponent might bring up. He believes that it is important to know both sides of a story, and to be able to side with some logic that might be within those that want less gun control. The premise of this argument is to know what the “other sides” attacks are so that you can efficiently open your mind frame, while at the same time preparing to rebuttal the other side when needed. This is an example of inductive reasoning due to the fact that it starts with a conclusion and gives you a plan of action from already gathered data and statistics. It is not set up as a premise that one is going to study from. https://uproxx.com/news/arguments-against-gun-control/ Statements: P1. The constitution protects this and that is the end of the story. Because the constitution allows for this why would we change and amend it for anomalies of shootings that take place in this nation. Yes it is sad and yes it shouldn't happen, but to change the way the rules have been written is unnecessary. C1. There is no need to abolish the second amendment but as time changes and we advance in many areas of life, the constitution is open for interpretation and changes. When the constitution was drafted AR-15s were not invented and it makes sense that in today's societies weapons such as this should have regulations on who can obtain them. P2. Someone good can save others from someone intending to do harm when both armed.If someone with a level-head and good intentions has a weapon then they can stop and put and end to someone bad with a gun. This can lead to saving families from intruders, stores from getting robbed, and innocent people from getting killed. According to a Gallup poll, protection was the number 1 reason Americans advocated for wanting to keep their rights to firearms. C2. This is one of the easiest arguments to fight. Sure every now and then someone can protect others life with a firearm, but these cases are extremely rare as it is, and usually the protector has extensive training with firearms such as someone with military training or the police force. Also the leading reason why this cannot be accepted is because it is anecdotal evidence and while anecdotal evidence is nice it cannot be proven and is not empirical. P.3 I like guns and I follow all the rules so back off. Many people claim that they have a right to own a firearm stated in the second amendment, they abide by their states rules in being able to carry a firearm, the NRA protects them, and I enjoy shooting them, so back off. C.3 While you may enjoy this you cannot infringe on others unalienable rights and violating their life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. My rights are protected as well under the constitution and your liking of something doesn't mean you can operate and use them with no regulations. Strengths:

This novelist did a good job of presenting information especially information that gives both sides of an argument. I think he brought up good points on how to effectively counter an opponents arguments while also realize where they are coming from. He uses stats that should be disproved or should not be used for arguments due to numerous fallacies. I think that overall he provided sufficient evidence that people can use to help argue their points on gun control. He does a good job of presenting cleat, logical, and factual evidence and doesn't try to trick people to be on his side. I do not think that his views are biased. It is clear that he has a side in the argument and his article is geared towards those that want more regulations on gun control. The truth in his first point is the fact that with changing times the constitution adapts and is reinterpreted into today's society and also points to the fact that even he doesn't outright want

all guns to be banned. The truth in his second point is the fact that anecdotal evidence cannot be used to say that something should or shouldn't happen especially when even in the instances of the anecdotal evidence it is quite rare for these cases to happen. The truth in his third point is the fact that everyone has constitutional rights. He doesn't deny gun owners of their rights, but also doesn't want his rights to be infringed upon. Weaknesses:

This novelist was not maybe the most acclaimed person to talk about these issues which could be seen as an issue by some. He uses language that is inappropriate for his discussion which can also hurt his credit and make him look less knowledgeable in his field. I think this is his main weakness which is simply the fact that he doesn't speak in a professional manner throughout the entirety of his presentation.

Thanksgiving Dinner

Over the thanksgiving break I had Thanksgiving with my father’s side of the family, in which politics are a mixed bag. There are a lot of younger adults but also plenty of middle aged or older white men. Discussing something entirely unrelated to politics with my Uncle, he mentioned that he thinks what Trump has done with the economy is great even though he disagrees with Trump’s rhetoric and the social divide Trump has created in America. I asked him what he meant by “Trump’s economy” and how things had improved. The two arguments he gave me are as follows: 1.The stock market is up significantly since the election of President Trump. 2.America’s GDP has grown since the election of Trump. 3.Unemployment has fallen significantly.Therefore: Trump has improved Amer ica’s economy. Now of courseI did not ask him to cite his sources or proceed to give exact numbers since this was a family dinner and I didn’t want to come off as condescending especially since I would easily be able to verify all of this information online and see the information he is talking about. I don’t believe his statement was particularly partisan or influenced by partisan politics since he did criticize Trump’s rhetoric and the social changes that have come to be because of it. My uncle is a truck driver with no real authority on much of this however the premises that he had laid out do have their foundations in reality, with little bias. The general citations and links to his arguments are as follows: 1. The stock market is way too big to measure everything in its entirety so we will stick to how much the Dow Jones group has grown over five years: https://money.cnn.com/data/markets/dow/ Notice the large boom right around the election of Trump and how its grown since. 2.The GDP has grown since the election of Trump and you can see 50 years of GDP history here: https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/usa?year=2017 3.The unemployment rate by month can be seen here, and unemployment is currently down from when Obama was in office. http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor - And - employment/national-employment-monthly-update.aspx

In a vacuum, all of these things tend to say that Trump’s economy is working wonderfully and that Trump has been a catalyst for enormous growth. However, the reality is that most of these premises are simply just continuations of a trend of growth that likely would’ve happened with or without Trump. The unemployment and GDP premise are especially somewhat misleading when you cherry pick the year Trump was elected or the years that followed as improvement from the years prior. This is because, as you’ll see, these have been trending towards improvement at roughly the same pace that they continue to improve under Trump. This is a major weakness in the total argument. Despite being strong factually, they are weak in context. The major strength of the total argument is that the Dow Jones Index has blown up since the election of Trump. This is irrefutable, its grown at not just a linear rate but it had an immediate exponential boom. The weak part of this though is that when my uncle had told me that the stock market was booming, I asked how much money he had in stocks. “Well, not anything at the moment” was his reply, and that’s the general reply amongst most working class people. Plenty of middle class people own stock in the company they work for, but outside of that, people in the middle class or lower generally don’t see any great benefits to stock market explosions. The US stock market exploded because so many rich investors who already had it made saw an opportunity to invest in a republican candidate winning, who would likely eliminate some regulations and profits for companies would soar. Frankly, my uncle and most other Americans like him don’t really benefit. Now, I don’t think that my uncle was trying to trick me, but rather just repeat the talking points he might have heard from pundits on the right. These arguments are sort of made in bad faith because they ignore context and are generally misleading. However, because there is some factual evidence to them, I can’t say they’re absurd or made in a greater position of bad faith than any other pundit talking point from any political party.

The article “Liberal Parents, Radical Children” written by David Brooks, an op - Ed columnist for the New York Times, diagrams the ever present generation gap among radical youths and their more system-trusting parents. Although Brooks is a noted moderate conservative, his argument is relatively non-partisan and presented using deductive reasoning. Brooks defends his conclusion that regardless of an individuals’ ideological lean, younger people have less trust in “the system”, “less faith in institutions, and a greater awareness of group identity” by comparing the actions of younger and older citizens on both sides of the aisle (14). This article can be found at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/opinion/millennial- activists-generation-gap.html . P1: If you are young, you believe group identity matters, have less social trust, and have less faith in institutions .P1.1: If you are liberal, you believe the system is corrupt and should be demolished

.P1.2: If you are conservative, you believe the system is a “betrayal of the working class” and that demographically diverse societies are beneficial but cultural boundaries should exist (Brooks 13). 

P2: If you are an older, you are individualistic. o P2.1: If you are liberal, you cheer on the left-leaning causes, but you believe the system is generally sound. o P2.2: If you are conservative, you believe in universal systems and the “open movement of people and goods” (Brooks 13). 

C: So,within each ideology (Liberalism and Conservatism) there exists a generation gap between younger and older generations.Through deductive reasoning, David Brooks has created a valid argument with seemingly true premises, therefore verifying its soundness. He presents evidence regarding specific differences between the younger and older generations within the liberal and conservative ideologies, as seen above. To support his conclusion, he cites a similar conclusion made by Midge Decter, an American journalist and Democratic liberal turned controversial conservative, in her 1975 book Liberal Parents, Radical Children. Because Decter has sat on both sides of the aisle, she has a unique perspective from which to analyze the political climate; although she is not unbiased, she is less prone to bias. Therefore, because Brooks based his assertion about the presence of a generation gap on Decter’s earlier work, his argument is relatively credible. However, aside from this source, Brooks bases all his premises on conjecture, one of several weaknesses in his argument. Despite the relative soundness of his argument, Brooks’ argument is not fully fleshed out as he neglects to clearly define the generation gap among conservatives, and most of the claims he makes go without supporting evidence. He makes a significant number of claims regarding the differences among older and younger liberals; however, his evidence regarding the differences among older and younger conservatives is sparse. For example, at the end of his article, he purports the generation gap is “less politically important [to conservatives] because the young don’t influence the G.O.P. much” but doesn’t provide evidence for why this is true (Brooks 12). Brooks’ hesitance to address the presence of a conservative generation gap shows his argument is in “bad faith”.