English in-class: Analyzing Arguments

1st:

1. Planned Parenthood (the organization) is important
1. she is trying to get the readers to support Planned Parenthood, or to at least understand the controversy pointed at it.
2. The thesis is clearly stated, it can be seen in the first paragraph near the end.
2. She uses the support provided by facts presented by Planned Parenthood along with articles presenting the problems .
1. The controversy is null, Planned Parenthood is unique in applying sex ed education and treatment. Then debunking of the controversy behind Planned Parenthood.
2. Facts about how Planned Parenthood provides assistance to women, the facts and statistics from Planned Parenthood’s website, articles from news sites, and a personal anecdote.
3. The reasons presented are factual and work to convince the reader that yes, this is an important subject
3. She seems pretty even handed on the issue taking the controversy into account and dealing with it accordingly.
1. Yes there are, mainly on the second page going forward there are mentions of the controversy faced by Planned Parenthood and why it doesn’t matter
2. She acknowledges them and responds to them reasonably
3. She treats other arguments respectively.
4. Yes she does, though she avoids countering the controversy she presents why Planned Parenthood is important and why the controversy should be overlooked
4. She uses the sources presented by Planned Parenthood along with an article from a news site and a personal anecdote.
1. Each is portioned through the paper and used to support arguments or present another piece of opinion to argue through ethos or pathos
2. Planned Parenthood is biased towards it’s own success but could be seen as fairly credible, CNN is a news site and on this issue could be seen as fairly unbiased thus is credible, and her own anecdote is presented fairly biased but that’s because it’s her friend’s opinion
3. They are, her friend’s anecdote was recent.
5. It seems to be from a neutral if not slightly biased towards the side of Planned Parenthood talking to the audience in a matter considered peer to peer.
1. She does not and presents information in the first paragraph that provides some backstory
2. I felt pretty excluded reading the paper, not that it was a bad thing, because it wasn’t really aimed at me
3. It was a topic that I’m not really familiar with thus not really.

2nd:

1. Abortion is bad and should not be allowed (simplified)
1. That abortion is cruel and should not be allowed
2. No stated thesis yet.
2. She uses scientific evidence of the development of a baby, she uses opinions and beliefs for the rest.
1. Scientific evidence, arguing towards ethos, mentioning that it should be a crime akin to murder.
2. Facts and examples are used to backup the main point.
3. She needs to use more facts over opinions or find anecdotes to prove her opinions
3. She has examples of arguments from both sides.
1. Yes and there doesn’t seem to be any mention of dealing with them.
2. She doesn’t seem to refute or acknowledge them as the paper is still an outline.
3. She seems to treat them respectfully.
4. Possibly a few sweeping generalizations.
4. She has no stated sources yet.
1. There seems to be sources used in the main argument and they are used to reinforce her argument.
2. As they are not stated I cannot check if they are credible
3. or current
5. She addresses from a neutral point in the outline from a peer to peer standpoint.
1. No and presents information to get you up to speed.
2. Exclude, very little use of “we” language.
3. As I’m not very up to date on the issue I don’t really have any opinions on the subject.