“So much of American society has become sloppy and laissez faire about the mechanics of writing” (Naomi Baron 88). Baron is making a bold statement by saying that, but she is a linguistics professor at American University and has seen a bad impact on student writing. Another statement made was “it reinforces simplistic writing that may be acceptable for conversation but is not so good for critical thinking or analysis” (Cullington 89). Both of these points are very true and definitely affect what the final outcome will be, weather it makes writing worse, or has no affect at
Source G is unreliable as it is sacrificial, and may be partisan. It is clearly aimed at a republican audience or neutrals in order to portray Kennedy in a bad light by using simple techniques. It is inadequate as it is confined to a limited period of time. It is a simple cartoon and is biased against Kennedy quite profusely. Source G’s content shows us how people felt about him and that people didn’t feel he was perfect during his time as president only after his assassination.
He only presents one premise, that laws facilitate the segregation between smokers and nonsmokers, and consequently allow organized crimes harassing smokers to occur. The grounds for his premises are weak, as he does not provide concrete and reliable information to support his cause. Scott’s basic premise is that laws encourage the violation of smokers’ rights. He begins his argument with, “The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and a host of anti-discrimination laws notwithstanding...” With that commencement, Scott proves that he does not understand the concept of discrimination. He continues by claiming that denying housing and employment for smokers is a form of public hostility.
K. V. ENG 101 3/31/14 To Ban or Not to Ban In Dennis Baron’s, Don’t make English Official- Ban it Instead he is insisting that instead of making English the official language of the United States, we should just get rid of it altogether. In his small article he manages to whip up six small arguments to convince the readers of his ludicrous proposal. Rather than actually convincing the readers, his points are unclear, sometimes confusing and unsatisfying. In the end he doesn’t actually set up a solution for his readers, and leaves them with the whole “so what was the point,” feeling. Through his poor perspectives and unfocused essay, I am far from convinced that English should not be the official language but banned.
Most agree that gun-related injury or death of innocent citizens should never be tolerated, but there are opinions on the course to take in an effort to discover a solution. This paper will offer problems and solutions associated with past and present efforts to manage the issue of gun-related injuries/death. This paper will also render the discoveries and opinions of the above-mentioned group members as it relates to this controversial topic. Stricter gun-control laws do not help prevent gun-related injuries/deaths One method to prevent gun-related injuries/deaths is to make serious efforts to treat depression, mental health issues, and drug abuse in society. A large number of gun-related injuries/deaths are committed by members of society that have untreated disorders and others that simply neglect firearm safety rules and existing gun-control laws.
It is a debate that has no right answer, and two justifiable sides. Gun-lovers need the NRA to stand up for their rights yet those opposed to it are just looking for a safer America. Pro-gun or not, we must remember that it is not the weapon that kills it is the person holding
Critical Analysis on “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate.” Dan Gardner’s publish, “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate”, is strongly controversial in his position against increasing enforcement of drug laws, and boosting penalties for violators. He believes that you should actually limit enforcement and hardship of sentencing when it comes to drugs. Was his argument persuasive enough in the essay to actually influence his wishes into society? Personally, I don’t think so. Gardner’s ideas are too drastic and I believe he didn’t have enough support in his argument that his plans would actually decrease the murders in gang violence.
Unit one also taught me to reevaluate how important certain priorities when it came to writing. I learned from the other unit one authors, Joseph M. Williams and James E. Porter, that when an essay is read by someone who is looking for grammatical error or plagiarism instead of content, they will often find the error and ignore the content. Although I do still know the importance of grammar and originality, this class and the grading style has let me put those constructs in the back seat until the editing process, instead of making them something I had to constantly worry about. I don’t believe that good writing revolves around grammar, but rather how well your words can convey a message to the intended audiences.
It also doesn’t make sense to blame an inanimate object rather than the individual behind it and the reasons why gun violence occurs. A gun is a tool, not unlike a car or knife. When a law-abiding citizen makes the decision to purchase a gun, it is usually for the purpose of self-defense. It evens the playing field between a victim and a potentially dangerous criminal. In the story “They Each Had a Gun,” Hannah LaMarca was robbed and assaulted with no way to defend herself.
Summary of “Ban The Things. Ban Them All.” In the essay, “Ban The Things. Ban Them All,” written by Molly Ivins, she expresses concern about society’s ownership of guns, and how they have grown to be used more of a weapon for show, than for protection. Ivins also argues that the argument of “guns don’t kill people,” doesn’t exist, because she believes that they do, and that that may be all they ever do. Ivins states that she supports the Second Amendment: “A well–regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed,”(437) and that adolescents in our society are NOT part of a well-regulated militia: “[there are] teenage drug dealers…cruising the cites of this nation perforating their fellow citizens with assault rifles” (437).