Hello,

I need to respond to the below two students discussion post for this week with at least 150 words per response. I have attached the question below in bold of what the students are answering.

In your responses, comment on your classmate’s analysis of the his/her chosen essay. If you disagree with the analysis, explain why. You may also use this reply to comment on whether the organization, as explained by your classmate, creates a strong argument.

Student one:

Happy Tuesday everyone,

Hopefully, you all had the opportunity to relax a little and spend some quality time with friends and family during Memorial Day.

For this week’s forum, I’ve decided to analyze the article, “MISFIRES in the Gun Control Debate” by Meghan Rosen. I picked this particular article due to myself being a responsible gun owner and being curious about actual statistics and not the “talking points” we tend to hear from both sides of the argument. Hopefully, I will learn from many of you this week how to better my analyzing skills. With this article, I had a tough time trying to categorize the claim, grounds, backing, etc. Below is what I found in the article.

Claim: I felt as if the claim was one of the more accessible items to find as it was right after the title. “Researchers face roadblocks and a dearth of informative data” (Rosen 16). The rest of the article discusses in detail why this is a fact.

Grounds: The grounds of the argument is, “But the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can’t collect gun data like it used to, and information about guns used in individual crimes is locked up tight” (Rosen 17). This direct quote from the article directly addresses why the reader should believe the claim. There are numerous other grounds of the argument but I felt this to be the most direct. Overall, the writer did a great job at not utilizing pathos and stuck to logos by using arguments from both sides.

Warrant: The warrant of this article was very hard to find due to contradicting studies and opinions throughout the article. One example of conflicting information is “the findings suggest that it’s easier now for criminals in Missouri to get their hands on legally purchased guns. But Webster can’t say for certain whether more guns are moving to criminals-or whether legal gun owners are committing more crimes, for that, he’d need to see the individual gun traces” (Rosen 17). In this article, there are minimal facts that support the claim with absolute confidence.

Backing: The backing was also tricky for me to find. I felt as if this article was “all over the place” with really backing up the claim. If I were to put the finger on it, I would say the graphs and statistics at the end of the article would serve as the backing.

Rebuttal: As I stated with the warrant, the whole article seemed to contradict one claim after the other, which I would assume would be the rebuttal.

The qualifier and concession were challenging to find. I tried three times but couldn’t match a phrase with the definitions. Hopefully, I will read some of your forums this week and attain a better understanding.

After checking Turnitin.com, I was very impressed with the plagiarism detector. The database where these phrases come from must be pretty substantial in size. I am happy that the items that were highlighted in my report were correctly cited (so I think right now). It would be foolish for someone to try to steal someone else’s work in this day and age.

Best of luck on your forums this week. Looking forward to the conversations!

-Ryan

Works Cited

Rosen, Meghan. “MISFIRES in the Gun Control Debate. (Cover Story).” Science News, vol. 189, no. 10, May 2016, pp. 16–21. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=eih&AN=114917474&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Student two:

Good Evening Classmates,

Part 1

I evaluated Age Boom: Why Now is Time to Retire the Idea of Retirement, by David Rothkopf. This particular writing stuck out to me as the closer I get to a retirement age, I wonder what that term even means? Below is a list of Toulmin methods used in this writing.

Claim: According to the assigned reading, “a claim may be called a proposition or a thesis, the single statement that connects all elements of the argument” (Driver et al pg.141). This was confusing at first as the author led with a red herring, trying to relate election problems to retirement issues and the mean for retirement age. His claim or thesis was “The financial iceberg America seemed to be careening toward for the past 30 years, the unfunded retirement health care liability…now looks very much like a potential bonanza” (Rothkopf pg.66). This is also a claim of fact as he is asserting something is true.

Support: According to the reading, “Support is composed of evidence that a writer uses to prove the claim” (Driver et al pg.146). The author does support his claim with facts as he examines the comparisons of median retirement ages to support his reasoning. For example, “U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the number of workers 65 and older grew by 101 percent between 1977 and 2007” (Rothkopf pg.67).

Warrant: According to the reading, “a warrant is an underlying assumption or inference that the writer takes for granted” (Driver et al pg.149). Rothkopf justifies or infers his claim as a significant issue showing the impact within the workplace. For example, “government and corporate leaders alike will have to consider new training requirements for careers that extend 60 years” (Rothkopf pg.67).

Backing: According to the reading, “sometimes a warrant is not widely known or accepted and must be defended” (Driver et al pg.150), this defense is known as backing. He infers that the suspension of a traditional retirement age is important and backs it up with a fact. For example, “Today, a 1-year-old in the United States has a 50 percent chance of living to 100” (Rothkopf pg.67).

Qualifier: According to the reading, “qualifiers are words or phrases that writers use to set limits on their assertions to prevent them from being deemed as applying universally” (Driver et al pg.67). The author does a very good job of only stating absolutes through statistics and uses qualifier terms to prevent assertions. For example, “As a result, it could well be, as it often is, that while politicians dithered over possible solutions…” (Rothkopf pg.67)

Rebuttal: According to the reading, “rebuttals, focusing on an opposing view, may seem like something to avoid, they can actually help you as you build your Toulmin argument” (Driver et al pg.155). The author uses a concession statement about the possibility of resentment for an older workforce and follows it up with a rebuttal statement. For example, “there may be resentment against those who stay in the workplace longer…but throughout history, similar concerns have been resolved through economic growth” (Rothkopf pg.67).

Part 2

After reviewing my Turnitin.com results I learned that I needed to take a better look at my grammar as I made simple mistakes with possessive nouns and missing parentheses with cited material. I’ve developed an over reliance on Microsoft Word being able to auto correct or identify my mistakes and need to do a better job of proof reading my drafts before submitting the final product.

v/r

Henson

Work Cited:

Driver, Hellen, et al. Effectiveness in Writing<effectiveness>. American Public University System ePress, 2012, American Public University System, ebooks.apus.edu.ezproxy1.apus.edu/ ENGL102/ENGL102_Jan2014_ebook.pdf.

Rothkopf, D. “Age Boom.” Foreign Policy, no. 222, Jan. 2017, pp. 66–67. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=aph&AN=120929424&site=ehost-live&scope=site.