Axia College Material

Appendix E

Critical Analysis Forms

Fill out one form for each source.

Source 1 Title and Citation: Why I Would Vote No On Pot
Gupta, S. (2006). Why I would vote no on pot. Time, 168(19), 98.
1 / Identify the principal issue presented by the source. / The principal issue presented is that marijuana should not be legalized, even for medicinal purposes.
2 / Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. / I did not detect any blatant examples of bias in this essay. I determined this by examining the article carefully for instances of slanted writing, leading language, contradictions or unreliable reasoning. In addition, the author deliberately balanced his views by providing facts and alternate opinions that support the opposing position.
3 / Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this. / There were no areas of vagueness or ambiguities in the editorial. The author provided specific examples of why medical marijuana can be beneficial for certain individuals. He counters those examples with detailed facts to support his claim that the potential risks outweigh the benefits. He cites some recent studies and their specific results (although he does leave some information unsupported), and he quotes an expert on the topic. The language he used was straightforward, clear and easy to understand.
4 / Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning. / I found the source to be credible. The author is a very well-known neurosurgeon, who was recently offered the position of Surgeon General of the United States. The article was published in Time magazine, which is a reliable and prominent publication.
5 / Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. / There is one example of a rhetorical device used in this essay. The author uses an 9 leading association when he says that “most of the people eager to vote yes on the new ballot measures aren’t suffering from glaucoma, Alzheimer’s or chemo-induced nausea. Many of them just want to get stoned legally.” That language is a bit emotionally charged and reinforces a negative stereotype that people who support marijuana legalization are “stoners.”
6 / Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. / There really are not any strong fallacies here, but there are two statements that might be leaning toward fallaciousness. The first is when the author moves away from the main points of his argument that the risks of using marijuana outweigh the benefits by throwing in a brief statement about religious leaders in two states supporting marijuana law reform because it might cut down on drug trafficking and make communities safer. He tosses this important argument aside and dismisses it rather casually by simply answering with “perhaps,” and then stating once again that marijuana use is damaging to one’s health. Although not blatant, this tactic seems like a distraction and might be considered a straw man fallacy.
The second is the final statement, which may be a scare tactic. He writes, “If you get high before climbing behind the wheel of a car, you will be putting yourself and those around you in danger.” Although the statement is likely true, it’s obvious that it was positioned in a way to be a bit shocking. There is no other mention of the dangers of driving and smoking marijuana, and it is the author’s final thought—obviously the impression he wants to leave us with is that marijuana is dangerous and scary.
7 / State one argument made by the author. / One argument the author makes is that despite all the public service campaigns to inform the public about the dangers of marijuana use, nearly 15 million Americans still use marijuana at least once a month.
8 / Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument. / There are two premises in this argument. The first is that those who are educated about the risks of using marijuana ignore the warnings and decide to use it any way. The second is that Americans are not hearing the message about the dangers of marijuana. The conclusion in this argument is that all the public-awareness programs regarding marijuana have not been effective in curbing its use.
9 / Is the author’s argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this. / This argument, while strong, is invalid. The argument is invalid because even if both premises are true, the conclusion is still not guaranteed to be true. The premises are somewhat subjective and might be difficult to prove absolutely. There could be other reasons that cause Americans to not heed the warnings presented by the government. Perhaps they are hearing conflicting information that negates the campaign. Additionally, the author does not back up these premises with study findings or statistics, which certainly weakens them.
Since the argument is invalid, soundness or unsoundness does not apply. The argument can be shown to be a strong one; however, because the premises are fairly logical and reasonable. Although they do not confirm the absolute truth of the conclusion, they make it more likely to be true than false.
10 / Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this. / The author does not use moral reasoning in this essay. He chose to use expert testimony, study results and medical facts to support his reasoning instead. I determined this by looking for key indicators of moral reasoning like judgment statements such as “right” and “wrong,” along with directives like “we should.”
Source 2 Title and Citation: Pro: U.S. Can Make, Save Money By Legalizing, Taxing Marijuana
Semenza, G. (2009, May3). Pro: U.S. can make, save money by legalizing, taxing marijuana. Victoria Advocate, p.NA.
1 / Identify the principal issue presented by the source. / The principal issue presented is that marijuana should be legalized in the U.S.
2 / Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. / The author demonstrates some bias by using dramatic quotes and forceful language to support his position. He describes the “bloody” drug wars in Mexico that have killed thousands of “gang members and innocents.” And although the quotes he uses are startling with many provocative adjectives and descriptions—they do come from credentialed sources and are relevant to the topic.
3 / Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this. / The author is very clear in providing examples of where the current policy of marijuana’s illegality and the enforcement of current drug laws have failed; but, besides the anecdotal information and quotes from experts, he provides no relevant statistical data or study findings. For this reason, the entire article may be considered somewhat ambiguous.
4 / Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning. / I do have some doubts as to the credibility of the source. The author provides background information to establish that the experts quoted in the article have relevant experience and knowledge; but the author himself does not appear to have the same credibility. Further, the newspaper the article was published in is not a well-known national publication and appears to be politically-oriented.
5 / Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. / There are several rhetorical devices used in this article. There are both euphemisms and dysphemisms, as well as rhetorical definitions and rhetorical comparisons. For example, the author describes marijuana as a “harmless plant” that has sparked a “bloody, failed drug war.” One of the quoted experts refers to nicotine and alcohol as “addictive drugs.” Much of the language seems intentionally incendiary.
6 / Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. / One rather obvious fallacy used is a post hoc fallacy. The author paraphrases one of his sources by claiming that with the regulation of marijuana, the dangerous drug cartels would “wither.” He supports the claim by comparing it to the regulation of alcohol, saying, “You don’t see Coors and Anheuser Busch fighting with machine guns in the streets of Golden, Colo.” The fallacy is that one would definitely cause the other, when the two things being compared are very different and it would be impossible to prove that the same result would occur.
7 / State one argument made by the author. / One argument the author makes is that “by giving Americans free choice, the U.S. government could use the billions of dollars spent each year fighting drug use and jailing offenders for better purposes.”
8 / Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument. / One premise is that if marijuana were legal, the government would not need to spend money on arresting and jailing marijuana users. The other implied premise is that the money currently used for such purposes is not being used wisely and could be better spent. The conclusion is that legalization of marijuana would lead to increased revenue and better spending by the government.
9 / Is the author’s argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this. / The argument is valid in that if the premises were true, the conclusion would be true. However, it is not a sound argument, as the premises (especially the implied premise) cannot absolutely be proven to be true. In fact, the only support the author provides for his premises is an unsubstantiated quote stating that “by legalizing and taxing marijuana, you could bring in an estimated $6 billion to $7 billion a year.” Estimated by whom? The author doesn’t say.
Although the conclusion may be true, the premises are largely hypothetical and not adequately supported, so the argument is a weak one.
10 / Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this. / Although the author himself does not directly use moral reasoning, he does so obliquely by using quotes where moral reasoning is used. The quotes contained moral imperatives like “we’ve got to” and absolutes like “you can’t.”
Source 3 Title and Citation:
1 / Identify the principal issue presented by the source.
2 / Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
3 / Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
4 / Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning.
5 / Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
6 / Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
7 / State one argument made by the author.
8 / Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.
9 / Is the author’s argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this.
10 / Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this.
Source 4 Title and Citation:
1 / Identify the principal issue presented by the source.
2 / Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
3 / Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
4 / Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning.
5 / Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
6 / Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
7 / State one argument made by the author.
8 / Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.
9 / Is the author’s argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this.
10 / Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this.

CRT 205