Comprehensive Argument Analysis Capital Punishment

Source 1 Title and Citation: The thirst for revenge: trying to understand capital punishment.

Callahan, Sidney. "The thirst for revenge: trying to understand capital punishment.(Column)." Commonweal. v122. n12 (June 16, 1995): p8(2). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library. 11 Mar. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=IACDocuments&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=OVRC&docId=A17029166&source=gale&srcprod =OVRC&userGroup Name=apollo&version=1.0>

Identify the principal issue presented by the source.

The author is trying to persuade his audience that capital punishment is morally wrong and the arguments in favor of the death penalty all boil down to the human desire for vengeance. I think the basic appeal of the death penalty is that its advocates believe that only by taking a murderers life can true justice be served. The author is giving his personal opinion by using the words I think and does not give facts to back it up.

Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.

Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this. Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning.

The statement, I want to penetrate this different moral universe is ambiguous. This sentence can be interpreted different ways. When reading this article, I found it to be very emotionally charged. The author used a great amount of rhetorical devices, fallacies, and weak arguments, which I believe is due to his lack of knowledge on the subject. Could it be that your sympathy with criminals and rebels is related to your rebellion against your authoritarian father, teacher, priest? and How can people be in favor of capital punishment? are loaded questions. Or perhaps your congenital temperamental timidity

Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.

CRT 205

read cowardice--makes you unwilling to face the fact that justice must wield a terrible swift sword. is a dysphemism. Forget the rowdies who drink and raucously celebrate executions outside the prison walls; they and others like them will turn up at any exhibition or blood sport without any inkling of what theyre about. is both a dysphemism and a stereotype.

Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.

Could it be that your sympathy with criminals and rebels is related to your rebellion against your authoritarian father, teacher, priest? and How can people be in favor of capital punishment? are loaded questions. Or perhaps your congenital temperamental timidity read cowardice--makes you unwilling to face the fact that justice must wield a terrible swift sword. is a dysphemism. Forget the rowdies who drink and raucously celebrate executions outside the prison walls; they and others like them will turn up at any exhibition or blood sport without any inkling of what theyre about. is both a dysphemism and a stereotype.

State one argument made by the author.

By enacting a state-mandated, cold-blooded destruction of a human life youve lost the moral struggle and witness against murder. You imitate the murderer and thereby let his dedication to violence, cruelty, hopelessness, and deaths final solution win the day. The premise is by enacting a state-mandated, coldblooded destruction of human life The conclusion is You imitate the murderer and thereby let his dedication to violence, cruelty, hopelessness, and deaths final solution with the day.

Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.

Is the authors argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this.

I found this argument to be a weak inductive argument because if the premise is true then the conclusion could very possibly be true as well. The premise does not prove the conclusion.

CRT 205

10

Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this.

People should take the moral high ground and reject vengeance. and As for ridding the world of the impure and morally guilty who violate human norms, this impulse of moral disgust should be suppressed.

Source 2 Title and Citation: Capital Punishment Should Not Be Abolished

Tucker, William. "Capital Punishment Should Not Be Abolished." Opposing Viewpoints: Criminal Justice. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library. 11 Mar. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do? &contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010120258&source=g ale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=apollo&version=1.0>.

Identify the principal issue presented by the source. Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this. Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning.

The principal issue presented is that the death penalty deters crime and therefore should not be abolished. This article was very fact-based. I did not read any statements that were not supported by facts.

With capital punishment in abeyance, homicides rapidly climbed to unprecedented heights is a vague statement. Yes, I found this source to be credible. William Tucker is a well-known and respected author. Tuckers article is written well and consists of reliable facts and statistics. States without capital punishment are generally liberal Democratic strongholds. is a stereotype. More sophisticated evidence of deterrence is also emerging. is a proof surrogate. Does this constitute proof of deterrence? is a loaded question.

Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.

CRT 205

Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.

Every time I would begin a sentence that I thought may consist of a fallacy, the remainder of the sentence would change my mind. This article was very carefully written. Executing people for murder deters other people from committing other murders. Common sense would suggest to anyone that such a deterrent effect must exist. After all, people do fear losing their lives. people do fear losing their lives. is the premise. Executing people for murder deters other people from committing other murders. is the conclusion.

State one argument made by the author.

Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.

Is the authors argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this. Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this.

I think this argument is sound, because it is a strong, valid argument. The premise is true people do fear losing their lives; therefore, the conclusion is probably true. Yes, the author uses moral reasoning. This subject is mainly a moral issue. The author claims that the United States has a moral obligation to keeping the death penalty in effect because it is proven to deter other murders.

10

CRT 205