The world’s Largest Sharp Brain Virtual Experts Marketplace Just a click Away
Levels Tought:
Elementary,Middle School,High School,College,University,PHD
| Teaching Since: | Apr 2017 |
| Last Sign in: | 327 Weeks Ago, 4 Days Ago |
| Questions Answered: | 12843 |
| Tutorials Posted: | 12834 |
MBA, Ph.D in Management
Harvard university
Feb-1997 - Aug-2003
Professor
Strayer University
Jan-2007 - Present
Please read and comment on this that need to be fixed. This is the first paragraph of a analyzes Im conducting on an article that argues about guns being bad.
The authors argument is not effective because of the lack of supporting evidence. The author has a credible source, the second amendment, but is unable to elaborate further and use this evidence to further her argument about guns being bad for society. The author repeats the first lines of the amendment, ”A well-regulated militia”, throughout the article but just keeps repeating it over and over without properly elaboration on how the second amendment contributes to her argument, which makes her evidence weak. The second piece of evidence is her analogy between England and the United States. The author does not have any proof that England has laws that prevent its citizens from carrying guns. The author compacts this statement in one sentence and again does not expand on it and its forgotten throughout the article. This lack of proof and further expanding on the issue makes the evidence weak. Lastly, there is no statistical data to support the theory of guns being bad for society. The logic part of this article is completely missing. There no sort of credible data that would probably help support the authors claim of guns contributing to violence. We don't actually have any numbers to prove that guns actually are a big cause of this violence. Overall the evidence presented in this article is weak and ineffective because the author is unable to use and elaborate on the pieces of evidence he has gathered to further his argument.
-----------