Axia College Material

Appendix E

Critical Analysis Forms

Fill out one form for each source.

Source 1 Title and Citation:The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crime.
Grant, Robert. "The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crime." Opposing Viewpoints:
Problems of Death. Ed. David A. Becker. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006.
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library-Univ of Phoenix. 1
May. 2010
<http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ovrc/infomark.do?
&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ30101
60239&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=uphoenix&version=1.0>

1 Identify the principal issue The principal issue of this

presented by the source. source is capital
punishment. It presents the
viewpoint of capital
punishment as an act of
violent revenge which fails
to prevent crime, but
instead breeds more
violence.

2 Identify any examples of I think this source is a type

bias presented by the of evident bias because
author. If none exist, the author does not admit
explain how you factors why capital
determined this. punishment could be
allowed. There is a
tendency to search and
present the information in
a way that confirms
already settled belief. The
author provides only the
kind of statistics that
confirm his supposition.
The example is: Twenty-
two thousand murders are
committed annually in the
U.S.A., but only two-thirds
are arrested, and only 45
 percent of accused are
found guilty. In my opinion
it is fair to show any data,
and there is a statistic of
murders rate where capital
punishment deters crime.

3 Identify any areas that are This is an example of

vague or ambiguous. If
none exist, explain how
you determined this.
vagueness: “Retributive
justice has a bad history,
however, as it has
historically been used to
enforce a class society by
oppressing the poor and
protecting the rich”. This
claim needs more details
and clarification. Also the
words “poor” and “rich”
have ambiguous meaning.
The example is a semantic
ambiguity.

4 Do you find the source At the beginning I found

credible? Explain your the claim to be plausibly
reasoning. true based on some biased
information. Analyzing it
more I came to the
conclusion it was a
credible source because it
represents a good support
of my background
information. The facts
presented by this source
coincide with mypersonal
observations, and the
information I’ve found from
other credible sources.
“Kids and petty offenders
5 Identify and name any under the current system
rhetorical devices used by become hardened, violent,
the author. If none exist, and persistent criminals”.
explain how you This rhetorical device is
determined this. called euphemism. The
word “petty” is put as
addition to “offenders” to
 make it sound better.

“The contagious nature of

violence infects the morally
righteous police officer as
well as the brutal
lawbreaker. In his study of
young murderers,” This is
an example of stereotype.
Police officers are included
into a category of righteous
people, while all
lawbreakers are brutal.

An example of
dysphemism is the
expression “by some
clumsy arithmetic we call
justice”. “Clumsy
arithmetic” is a slanter with
a negative tone used in
place of a real argument.

This sentence is a
rhetorical devicesnamed
loaded questions: “Who
demeaned that child
because his or her skin
color or religion or ethnicity
was different from the
majority in the community?

6 Identify and name any Argument from outrage:

fallacies used by the When we impose severe
author. If none exist, and excessive
explain how you punishment, when we
determined this. seek an eye for an eye, a
tooth for a tooth, a life for a
life, when we seek revenge
on lawbreakers by some
clumsy arithmetic we call
justice, we become violent
law abiders. “Clumsy
arithmetic” are the
provocative words added
from indignation.
 Straw Man:
Every time we send a
criminal to jail, especially a
juvenile offender, it is a
failure of society; every
time that we execute a
murderer, it is another
failure of society. This
position is based on
exaggeration.

Genetic fallacy:
Family and community
violence toward children,
including top-down
governmental violence,
turns some of them into
criminals.

Ad Hominem and Straw

Man:
Ethical communities don't
need a police officer on
every street corner
because ethical
communities care for all
their children.

7 State one argument made Where were the caring

by the author. family members, helpful
friends, concerned
teachers, and supportive
social workers when that
criminal was a child being
abused and neglected?
Who loved that child? Who
educated that child so that
he or she could succeed in
this world? Who
demeaned that child
because his or her skin
color or religion or ethnicity
was different from the
majority in the community?
Who did violence to that
child by relegating him or
her to poverty and then
 hating that child because
he or she was poor?
Generally speaking,
children who are loved and
cared for don't become
criminals. Family and
community violence toward
children, including top-
down governmental
violence, turns some of
them into criminals. Ethical
communities don't need a
police officer on every
street corner because
ethical communities care
for all their children.
Criminals aren't born; they
are made.

8 Identify the premises and

conclusion of the
argument. I Premise: Family and
community violence toward
children, including top-
down governmental
violence, turns some of
them into criminals:

a. Where were the caring

family members, helpful
friends, concerned
teachers, and supportive
social workers when that
criminal was a child being
abused and neglected?

b.Who loved that child?

Who educated that child so
that he or she could
succeed in this world?

c. Who demeaned that

child because his or her
skin color or religion or
ethnicity was different from
the majority in the
community?
 d.Who did violence to that
child by relegating him or
her to poverty and then
hating that child because
he or she was poor?

II Premise: Generally
speaking, children who are
loved and cared for don't
become criminals:

a. Ethical communities
don't need a police officer
on every street corner
because ethical
communities care for all
their children.

Conclusion: Criminals
aren't born; they are made.

9 Is the author’s argument This is an example of good

valid or invalid, sound or inductive argument. The
unsound, strong or weak? argument is a strong one.
Explain how you Its premises are a good
determined this. support to the conclusion.
The premises are more
likely to be true, and the
conclusion is more likely to
be true, therefore it is a
strong argument.

10 Does the author use moral In this article the author

reasoning? If not, explain uses moral reasoning.
how you determined this. Here are the examples:

1. Retributive justice
means that the criminal
must be made to pay for
the crime by a crude
mathematics that demands
the scales of justice be
balanced;

2. One man said that

 McVeigh should have been
stoned to death.

3. Retributive justice has a

bad history,

4. A far greater deterrent

than either, however,
would be more efficient
police investigation.

5 The issue is whether

the state ought to execute
convicted murderers.

Source 2 Title and Citation:

1 Identify the principal issue

presented by the source.

2 Identify any examples of

bias presented by the
author. If none exist,
explain how you
determined this.

3 Identify any areas that are

vague or ambiguous. If
none exist, explain how
you determined this.

4 Do you find the source

credible? Explain your
reasoning.

5 Identify and name any

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

6 Identify and name any

 fallacies used by the
author. If none exist,
explain how you
determined this.

7 State one argument made

by the author.

8 Identify the premises and

conclusion of the
argument.

9 Is the author’s argument

valid or invalid, sound or
unsound, strong or weak?
Explain how you
determined this.

10 Does the author use moral

reasoning? If not, explain
how you determined this.

Source 3 Title and Citation:

1 Identify the principal issue

presented by the source.

2 Identify any examples of

bias presented by the
author. If none exist,
explain how you
determined this.

3 Identify any areas that are

vague or ambiguous. If
none exist, explain how
you determined this.

4 Do you find the source

credible? Explain your
reasoning.

5 Identify and name any

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

6 Identify and name any

fallacies used by the
author. If none exist,
explain how you
determined this.

7 State one argument made

by the author.

8 Identify the premises and

conclusion of the
argument.

9 Is the author’s argument

valid or invalid, sound or
unsound, strong or weak?
Explain how you
determined this.

10 Does the author use moral

reasoning? If not, explain
how you determined this.

Source 4 Title and Citation:

1 Identify the principal issue

presented by the source.

2 Identify any examples of

bias presented by the
author. If none exist,
explain how you
determined this.

3 Identify any areas that are

vague or ambiguous. If
none exist, explain how
you determined this.

4 Do you find the source

credible? Explain your
 reasoning.

5 Identify and name any

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

6 Identify and name any

fallacies used by the
author. If none exist,
explain how you
determined this.

7 State one argument made

by the author.

8 Identify the premises and

conclusion of the
argument.

9 Is the author’s argument

valid or invalid, sound or
unsound, strong or weak?
Explain how you
determined this.

10 Does the author use moral

reasoning? If not, explain
how you determined this.

CRT 205