Philosophy 1100

1. Philosophy 1100 Title: Critical Reasoning Instructor: Paul Dickey E-mail Address: pdickey2@mccneb.edu Editorial Essay Guidelines

2. Editorial Analysis Paper 1) Two editorial analyses papers throughout the term will be 10% of your total grade. Each paper will count 5% of your total grade. 2) I recommend that you select your editorials or “articles” carefully from one of these sources. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/ http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html 3) There are five steps to the required analysis. Each step must be discussed appropriately. (Divide your paper into five separate paragraphs, if you choose.) 2

3. 5 Steps to the Editorial Analysis 1) Summarize the article as it is written. • Identify the logical argument, including all parts. What is the claim? What are the premises? Is the claim and premises clear and unambiguous? (Hint: A claim can always be stated in a single sentence.) • What is the evidence given for the primary claim? Is there evidence given for the premises or are they just asserted? • Identify any rhetorical devices, analogies, irony, etc. Identify any subjective components. 5) Is the argument strong? How could the argument have been made stronger? 3

4. How to Decipher a Complex or Confused Argument: A Recipe 1. Find the conclusion! Only by doing so, do you have any chance at all to identify premises appropriately. If you can’t identify a conclusion, you might ask if this is an argument. Sometimes it helps to ask what is the issue? 2. Identify claims which may serve as reasons (premises) for the conclusion. Ask yourself THE BASIC QUESTION – If these claims are true, do they make the conclusion more likely or certain to be true or do they not? 3. Sort out the “window dressing” which does not provide support and eliminate it. Put all this aside. 4. Identify premises themselves that need to have reasons to believe. Repeat steps #2 and #3 until “your cake is baked properly.”

5. Class Workshop • A Serial Killer in L.A. • http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-serial13-2008sep13,0,7582632.story (also on Quia page “Useful links”)

6. 5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis 1) Summarize the article as it is written. According to the editorial, a serial killer who last was known to have murdered victims thirteen years ago, again is threatening the neighborhoods of South Los Angeles. Eleven African American women have been shot and sexually assaulted. One man also has been victimized. The editorial asserts that given this situation, it was wrong for the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) not to notify the community that a predator was on the loose. This had not happened until the L.A. Weekly last month (August, 2008) published news of recent killings. Explain what is happening. Don’ t just “cut and Paste.” Be clear, brief, factual, and precise. Avoid any rhetoric that slants our understanding of the issue. Make sure that you do not add irrelevant issues or topics.

7. 5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis • Identify the logical argument, including all parts. What is the claim? What are the premises? Is the claim and premises clear and unambiguous? Determine exactly what is the claim/conclusion!!! Remember: A claim can always be stated in a single sentence. What is the claim or conclusion that the author is trying to make and wants you to believe? Or in other words, what is the issue that she wants you to believe is trueor theright thing to do.

8. 5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis For this article, I suggest to you that the major claim or conclusion is: The LAPD should have released information to the public sooner than it did. The article makes a claim that the LAPD should have released information to the public sooner than it did. This is the major claim or conclusion the author proposes. There is a secondary claim that the author appears to suggest – the LAPD’s lack of making such an announcement was in part racially motivated. The first of these claims is a normative claim and the second claim is a factual claim.

9. 5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis • Identify the logical argument, including all parts. What is the claim? What are the premises? Is the claim and premises clear and unambiguous? Now determine what are the premises. What are the reasonsthe author gives that we should believe the conclusion Remember: Each premise can always be stated in a single sentence. The premises MUST BE reasons to believe this particular claim or conclusion, not just some similar or other interesting claim about the topic.

10. 5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis For this claim, I suggest to you that only one premise is given: When the public is informed, there is a reasonable chance that witnesses will come forward and provide information to help solve the crimes. Thus, the argument being proposed is inductive – if the premise is true, then the premise would give evidence and support for the conclusion but does not make it certainly or necessarily true.

11. 5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis • Identify the logical argument, including all parts. What is the claim? What are the premises? Is the claim and premises clear and unambiguous? Now ask yourself if the conclusion and premise(s) are clear and without vagueness or ambiguity. Remember: Whether a claim is “too” vague or not depends typically on whether we can agree on a criteria of whether the premise is relevant or not and various “borderline” cases.

12. 5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis The claim seems to be vague on how soon the LAPD should have released the information, either within 24 hours or within 7 days? Or what? The claim & premises are both vague in what way the public is to be informed, that is, by a press conference, providing details to the newspaper, or what? Such vagueness however does not keep us from analyzing the author’s argument, but do remain a weakness in the argument. Other vagaries donothurt the argument at all, such as “as well as one man” does not inform us whether the man was shot, sexually molested, and/or “stuffed in a trash bag” as apparently were all the women.

13. 5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis 3) What is the evidence given for the primary claim? Is there evidence given for the premises or are they just asserted? • Analyze the strength of support that the premise(s) you found gives to the claim. Does the evidence provided make the conclusion Verylikely,somewhatlikely, or perhaps only possible. • If you were wanting to make a bet that the conclusion is true knowing the premise is true, would you expect to give or be given odds and, if so, how much?

14. 5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis No doubt true, sometimes witnesses will come forward with details that help crimes to be solved. This article however does not give us any evidence that tells the frequency that this occurs or whether this occurs more or less frequently in serial killings as opposed to other types of crime. In particular, the article gives no information or evidence whether witnesses typically come forward and help solve a case more often than a serial killer is caught because the lack of publicity has given the officers the advantage.

15. 5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis Identify any rhetorical devices, analogies, irony, etc. Identify any subjective components. • Use your WIPER SHIELD. W easeling, I nnuendo, P roof Surrogates E xplanations, Analogies & Definitions (Rhetorical) R idicule/Sarcasm S tereotypes H yperbole I mage Rhetoric E uphemisms/Dysphemisms L oaded Questions, and D ownplaying/Minimizing

16. 5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis The article relies heavily on rhetoric. Much of the descriptive language in the editorial is rhetorical (e.g. “terrorizing the neighborhoods, ”“gruesome body count,”“the deadliest serial killer in California history (hyperbole)” meant to evoke a sense of outrage. There are cases of minimizing (in the use of the phrase Expert “Profilers”), sarcasm and rhetorical analogy (“Few crimes are solved because a David Caruso-like detective outwits a criminal.”), and argument by outrage (it prompted a community outcry). The minimizing and satire are used to dismiss without any argument the point that sometimes it helps to catch a serial killer if the public is not informed. The argument from outrage seems meant just to achieve some vague but emotional assent from the audience.

17. The author gives other assertions that seem to suggest other premises than the one we proposed. For example, he implies that the race of the women played a role in the LAPD action by using a rhetorical question containing inuendo : If the victims had been well-to-do white women living on the Westside, would police have kept mum for so long? Since, it is unclear here how the embedded assumptions (even if true) would provide relevant support to the major claim, it could only be regarded as an independent assertion and claim and not a premise for the major claim. Furthermore, even as a secondary claim, it is not convincing. The author gives no premise for this claim, just rhetoric. Thus, there is no argument here. In this article, we have not been given any reason to believe either that the LAPD did or did not act with racial bias.

18. 5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis 5) Is the argument strong? How could the argument have been made stronger? • If the evidence provided makes the conclusion verylikely, then you have a strong argument. If the evidence makes the conclusion only possible, then you have a weak argument. Your article will probably be somewhere in the middle. Tell us where you think it lies on the scale. • Then consider WHAT premises and evidence could have been given that would have made a strong argument. Ask yourself if the author had assumed these and just left them unstated or did he fail to give a good argument?

19. 5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis The single premise seems to give weak evidence for the claim and thus the argument presented here is poor and not convincing. The argument for the major claim would have been much stronger if additional premises were given to argue that serial killers in particular were almost always caught because of “tips” provided by the general public. Various statistics and facts could have been researched to try to make this case. Or pursuing a different thread of premises, the author could have argued that the situation should have been made public because public knowledge was necessary for individuals to remain safe in their community. To keep the information from citizens was to put them individually at high risk. The author could have argued that the LAPD did not have the ethical or legal right to do that just for the benefit of “solving the case.”