need tomorrow by 12 pm

James

For this week’s assignment I read the article “9/11 in Retrospect,” by Melvyn Leffler.

Claim- I believe he stated his claim during the second sentence of the first paragraph. He states, “There was, and there remains, a natural tendency to say that the attacks changed everything. But a decade on, such conclusions seem unjustified” (Leffler, 9/11 in Retrospect). His stating that 9\11 did not change anything is a big different from what people believe. I believe that it did change the US much that day and some for the better and for the worse.

Support- “But the administration's new approach, one that garnered so much praise and so much criticism, was less transformative than contemporaries thought” (Leffler, 9/11 in Retrospect). This help to support what he had said because it stated that Bush’s way was not different than any of the past administrations approach at this.

Warrant- A supporting testimonial for warrant was found in the “9/11 in Historical Perspective” portion of the first paragraph in the first sentence. It states, “PREEMPTIVE AND preventive actions were not invented by Bush” (Leffler, 9/11 in Retrospect). The backing showed why I believe this the warrant

Backing- This backing is also in the “9/11 in Historical Perspective” part of the writing in the second sentence. The piece claims, “A century earlier, President Theodore Roosevelt's ‘corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine was a policy of preventive intervention in the Americas, as were the subsequent U.S. military occupations of countries such as Haiti and the Dominican Republic” (Leffler, 9/11 in Retrospect). This back his warrant up showing that the US in the past had done preemptive wars or strikes to protect the US.

Rebuttal- I believe that the rebuttal is in the “9/11 in Historical Perpective” part of the article in the second paragraph from the bottom. It states, “Many argue that U.S. policy after 9/11 was distinguished by its unilateralism. But the instinct to act independently, and to lead the world while doing so, is consonant with the long history of U.S. diplomacy, dating back to President George Washington's Farewell Address and President Thomas Jefferson's first inaugural speech” (Leffler, 9/11 in Retrospect). In this I found to be his rebuttal since he talked about people who think post 9/11 is marked by it unilateralism but showed that Washington and Jefferson both supported that they US should be a world leader.

Qualifier- I read through this whole article multiple times, and I do not believe I found any portion that could be considered a qualifier (Leffler, 9/11 in Retrospect).

 

 

I have looked at my report for my essay from last week provided by Turnitin. The resource highlighted the number on top of each page and the quotes I cited in my work from the article. I do not believe I need to do anything differently because I believe that I cited the quotes and the works correctly. However, I do realize that I need to be careful each time I use sources in my essay to make sure I cite all of the information correctly so I do not get into trouble for plagiarizing. I always check my writing for plagiarizing and a correct works cited.

 

 

Work Cited

Leffler, Melvyn P. "9/11 In Retrospect." Foreign Affairs 90.5 (2011): 33-44. International Security &           Counter Terrorism Reference Center. Web. 24 Oct. 2016.

Angelina

am writing about the essay titled, “A Populist Argument for Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage” by Rajczi, Alex. Throughout this essay Rajczi highlights several key points in his argument, which forms the blueprint of his essay.  First he states his claim then several examples that supports that claim. Then he states his argumentative strategy, afterwards he goes on to list several rebuttal arguments, then finally comes to the closing of his argument.

The claim was found the second paragraph of the essay. The Rajczi’s claim reads:

There is an argument for same-sex marriage that appeals only to widely-accepted political principals and that works even if, for the sake of argument, we grant that homosexuality is immoral, that same-sex marriage would place a stamp of approval on homosexuality, and that same-sex marriage would undermine traditional marriage or otherwise harm society. (475)

Rajczi then supports his claim several different times. He starts by pointing out how moral arguments are routinely overlooked and uses racism as an example.  “Some racists denied it, but more importantly, there were some people who genuinely believed the races were equal, but thought that ‘separate but equal’ was an acceptable policy,”(175). The conclusion of Rajci’s comparison was, “…moral blindness is a weakness of human beings,” (175). Another supporting clause he wrote is, “… the government must offer all opportunities equally unless there is some good reason to do otherwise,” (Rajczi 476). The example he gives is, the government issues a driver’s license to everyone unless there is good reason not to.

Rajczi lists six augmentative strategies in his essay:

1. “…if opposite-sex marriage is allowed, same-sex marriage should be allowed as well.” (477)

2. “…[our] beliefs imply that we should allow same sex marriage.” (478)

3. “…the government should not withhold an opportunity unless extending the opportunity would cause certain risks or harms to third parties.”(478)

4. “…Liberals should not support the extensive violations of neutrality that are embodied in the current ban on same-sex marriage.” (497)

5. “…we should consider the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples when deciding whether to let them marry.” (479)

6. “Instead, this paper is quite ecumenical, because, for the sake of argument, this paper grants some fundamental claims made by opponents of same-sex marriage- e.g., the claim that homosexually is immoral.” (480)

To further explain to the readers that are not quiet sold on his claim, Rajczi lists three rebuttal arguments:

1. “Immorality of Homosexual Relationships” (483). In this section, he compares the practice of polygamy and incestuous marriages to homosexuality, and puts the reader through a moral rollercoaster between what is morally right and what is right because we believe it is right.

2. “Same-Sex Marriage Places an ‘Stamp of Approval” on Homosexual Conduct” (488)

3. “Same-sex Marriage Would ‘Undermine Traditional Marriage’ of Otherwise Harm Society”

Works Cited

Rajczi, Alex. "A Populist Argument for Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage." The Monist 91.3 (2008): 475-505. ProQuest Research Library. Web. 8 Dec. 2011.