Critical
Bùi Minh Thắng – KTTT55B
Critical thinking assignment
Selections 11A and 11B The two arguments discuss about whether Gay Marriage should be allowed or not. As far as reasonability is concerned, the first argument “Equal treatment is real issue – not marriage” is less strong than the second one “Gay Marriage Unnatural”. In the first argument, the writer (USA Today) had some good reasonings and didn’t use so many rhetorical devices. The ultimate ground of this argument was seeking for an equal treatment for gay people, which indirectly approves Gay Marriage. Strong reasonings were provided to support this ground. Firstly, an issue was raised that “Constitutional amendment was needed and compromise was inevitable”. Here is a fallacy of argument from traditional as well: “Looking through the lenses of history and law…”. The writer stated that “marriage is far from a private religious matter” with only a mere look at history and law, but without providing any other persuasive reasons. Secondly, a strong argument was provided, that unlike the normal people, gay people would have their benefit seriously damaged if Gay Marriage was not allowed. An example was “devoted couples of 20 or 30 year’s standing didn’t have those rights and can’t get them because of their sex”. Thirdly, marriage of that kind was important to community stability. The writer used euphemism in the term “similarly committed to each other” to mute the disagreeable aspect of Gay Marriage. The fourth argument made use of inconsistency fallacy, which was about the US Constitution always tried to protect people equally, and prohibiting gay marriage might cause the conflict between theory and practice. The later argument, on the other hand, used argument from outrage as well, which stimulate the religious outrage of people who enter religion. Unlike the first argument, the second argument opposing Gay Marriage made use of a number of rhetorical devices. Firstly, argument from popularity appeared at the
Critical thinking assignment
Selections 11A and 11B The two arguments discuss about whether Gay Marriage should be allowed or not. As far as reasonability is concerned, the first argument “Equal treatment is real issue – not marriage” is less strong than the second one “Gay Marriage Unnatural”. In the first argument, the writer (USA Today) had some good reasonings and didn’t use so many rhetorical devices. The ultimate ground of this argument was seeking for an equal treatment for gay people, which indirectly approves Gay Marriage. Strong reasonings were provided to support this ground. Firstly, an issue was raised that “Constitutional amendment was needed and compromise was inevitable”. Here is a fallacy of argument from traditional as well: “Looking through the lenses of history and law…”. The writer stated that “marriage is far from a private religious matter” with only a mere look at history and law, but without providing any other persuasive reasons. Secondly, a strong argument was provided, that unlike the normal people, gay people would have their benefit seriously damaged if Gay Marriage was not allowed. An example was “devoted couples of 20 or 30 year’s standing didn’t have those rights and can’t get them because of their sex”. Thirdly, marriage of that kind was important to community stability. The writer used euphemism in the term “similarly committed to each other” to mute the disagreeable aspect of Gay Marriage. The fourth argument made use of inconsistency fallacy, which was about the US Constitution always tried to protect people equally, and prohibiting gay marriage might cause the conflict between theory and practice. The later argument, on the other hand, used argument from outrage as well, which stimulate the religious outrage of people who enter religion. Unlike the first argument, the second argument opposing Gay Marriage made use of a number of rhetorical devices. Firstly, argument from popularity appeared at the