Crt_205_Appendix_E

Axia College Material Appendix E Critical Analysis Forms Fill out one form for each source. Source 1 Hobbs, Thomas R. "Physicians Should Treat Alcoholism as a Disease." Current Controversies: Alcoholism. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library. 20 Dec. 2009 . | | 1 | Identify the principal issue presented by the source. | Is alcoholism a disease or a personal conduct problem. | 2 | Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. | I didn’t find this article to be biased because it is made up of facts. | 3 | Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this. | The author of the article explained in detail and stayed on topic. I don’t find this to be vague or ambiguous. | 4 | Do you find the source credible' Explain your reasoning. | I found this to be credible because the article was published in the Physicians News Journal. The author also references reliable sources such as American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. | 5 | Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. | Did not find any rhetorical devices used. No rhetorical definitions or any other type of slanting device to explain his argument. | 6 | Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. | Fallacies are not used by the author to downsize his claims or arguments. | 7 | State one argument made by the author. | Alcoholism should not be judged as a problem of willpower, misconduct, or any other unscientific diagnosis. | 8 | Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument. | Alcoholism should not be judged as a problem of willpower, misconduct, or any other unscientific diagnosis | 9 | Is the author’s argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak' Explain how you determined this. | His argument is valid and sound. The author has supported his argument by compiled information and facts from credible sources that support his argument. | 10 | Does the author use moral reasoning' If not, explain how you determined this. | The argument does not express value reasoning, so no the author did not use moral reasoning. | Source 2 Title and Citation: McGrath, Matt. "Marijuana Should Be Legalized." Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Ed. Charles P. Cozic. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library. 20 Dec. 2009 . | | 1 | Identify the principal issue presented by the source. | The principal is how are nation would profit from the legalization of marijuana. | 2 | Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. | I think with a title like Marijuana Should Be Legalized the author would have to be somewhat biased. | 3 | Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this. | All though hemp was briefly legalized, I found to be vague because no date was given. The prohibition of this drug is quite expensive to maintain, is vague because it doesn’t give the cost. Courtrooms are backed up for months, doesn’t say exactly how many months. Those are just a few there were a few others that didn’t give cost or a time period. | 4 | Do you find the source credible' Explain your reasoning. | The author is an engineer not an expert and some of the information is vague, so I find this a less credible source. | 5 | Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. | Smoking the plant would turn people into axe wielding murders, is a rhetorical explanation. Gets high, is a rhetorical definition for smoking marijuana. | 6 | Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. | I couldn’t see where the author used any fallacies that weakened his argument. If anything I could see wishful thinking. | 7 | State one argument made by the author. | No additives would be needed, since smokers really don’t need any. | 8 | Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument. | Smokers don’t need any additives is the premise and the conclusion is it doesn’t need any additives. | 9 | Is the author’s argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak' Explain how you determined this. | The premise being true makes the conclusion true, so I would say the authors argument is valid. | 10 | Does the author use moral reasoning' If not, explain how you determined this. | I think the moral reasoning the author is using is moral relativism. The idea that what is right and wrong depends on and is determined by one’s group or culture. | 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. | |