{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

crt_205_appendix_e[1] - Axia College Material Appendix E...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Axia College Material Appendix E Critical Analysis Forms Fill out one form for each source. Source 1 Title and Citation: “The Legal System Should Regulate Pollution” : Pollution. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. 1 Identify the principal issue presented by the source. Protecting the environment from pollution violators through legal regulation. 2 Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. The author definitely appears to have a biased opinion on violators of pollution. The viewpoints discussed point toward a change in the way things are currently handled and the author gives their opinion of what should take place. 3 Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this. The part found to be vague In the argument was how a regular citizen could stand up to a huge corporation without the finances to litigate. How would a private citizen fare against corporate violators? 4 Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning. I do find the source credible. The court cases discussed present facts and the discussion of past instances appear credible. 5 Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. A rhetorical device incorporated in this article would to me be common law wordings as well as the use of the word “polluters.” Dysphemism is in use by labeling the violators as “polluters.” 6 Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. Scare tactics may have been employed. Discussing consequences of litigation and injuries citizens have experienced may intimidate readers. 7 State one argument made by the author. “The common law approach was not perfect.” The author argues that beside majority involvement there were still the minority views. 8 Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument. The premise of the argument is whether courts should be the primary source of regulation of pollution violators. The conclusion is that getting back to common-law regulation. Citizens that are harmed CRT 205
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
should be the first source of retribution as penalty enforcers. 9 Is the author’s argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this. The author makes a valid argument about government regulation. How courts view standards involving violators of pollution is a sound argument. The statistics and facts mentioned make the points made in the article strong and influential. 10 Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this. Yes, in concluding the author appeals for “a return to common law.” The moral reasoning of returning to a time when laws were well served. The author seems to favor public reform rather than government regulation.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}