Three Strikes And The Whole Enchilada Essay

636 Words3 Pages
Three Strikes and the Whole Enchilada Three Strikes and the Whole Enchilada The article does not appear to be an argument at all, the premise is rather vague and there appears to contain no clear conclusion. As we have learned in our critical thinking book in order for an article to be and argument it must contain a premise and a conclusion (Moore, Parker, 2009). The premise would be that the crime rate has decreased since the three strikes law was passed. The conclusion does not seem to have been brought in to the article, thus making it no longer a valid argument. There seems to be no real purpose to the article, it jumps around so much it is hard to pick out the premise or deduct if there is a conclusion at all. The article itself seems rather questionable, they establish very little credibility for their evidence, especially on the other side and the author establishes no credibility for them self. With no credibility given to the author how are you to know if you can trust the information or the evidence they are giving? The author gives more credibility to the other views source, Frank Zimring, stating they are a University of California, Berkeley, law professor ( Moore, Parker, 2009, par. 3). Knowing we are talking about a law in use in many states including California Zimring would be a very credible source for information on the subject. The author also states that Zimring conducted an analysis on 3,500 criminal defendants in Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco before and after the three strikes law was passed but goes on to say that for the authors purpose there is not need to go into details on this study ( Moore, Parker, 2009, par. 3). That comment makes the author sound biased and takes away from their credibility, while also bringing in somewhat useless information to the article. The article establishes no credible

More about Three Strikes And The Whole Enchilada Essay

Open Document