Assignment 4.3 Answering Questions P153& P 160 - Essay Example

Objective 1. Where the Attempts To Establish Common Ground in the Essay The attempts to establish common ground in the paragraph where he discusses the benefits of the writer’s position. Particularly, he agrees with the naysayers that boycotting the Olympic Games always undermines the interests of athletes and nations. He also quotes DeFrantz to reiterate the acknowledgement that the Olympic Games should be about athletes, competition and the promotion of peace (19). Whether He Is Successful or Not Chu as the author is successful in establishing this common ground since one can clearly see the rationale that he advances.

The rationale is that even if athletes are the point of interest in the Olympic Games, yet there are ways through which the rights of the athletes can be protected without necessarily supporting actions of countries whose actions are an affront to the goals of the Olympics. 2. The Evidence That the Writer Supplies To Support His Viewpoint There are several efforts that the author concerts, as a way of providing his viewpoints with evidence. He quotes authorities in social sciences and political studies such as Anita DeFrantz and Tim Wendel to validate his claims and propositions, respectively.

He also adduces historical and diplomatic realities to validate his viewpoints. For example, he mentions: China’s invasion of Tibet in 1950s; China attenuating democratic space and suppressing liberty presently; and China being Sudan’s supplier of arms and chief buyer of Sudan’s oil. 3. Where the Writer Addresses Opposing Views The writer addresses opposing views when discussing the benefits of the writer’s position an when discussing a possible compromise. Summary of the Opposing Views One of the views (Reader’s view of the situation) stresses that boycotting Olympics is not the solution to the problems that undermine the goals and essence of the games.

The view divulges that instead, boycotts frustrate the interests of the athletes themselves. The antithesis of this view is that even though boycotts may undermine the interests of athletes, yet, the failure to address a host country’s injustices is a threat to the promise of peace. Whether the Writer Does Enough to Acknowledge Them The writer sufficiently acknowledges these opposing views by: discussing their essence and viability; issuing examples to underscore these views (for instance Russia and China’s political stance towards human rights are repeatedly referred to); and suggesting and qualifying the panacea to the problem. 4. The Points That the Conclusion Emphasizes The conclusion emphasizes the ineffectiveness of boycotts in tackling injustices, the injurious pitfalls of holding Olympic Games in repressive host countries, and a possible nostrum to the problem as being workable.

This nostrum (proposition) is establishing permanent Olympic sites in countries that uphold the values that these Olympic Games promote. Other Accomplishments in the Conclusion The author also acknowledges the fact that politics and actions of the host country greatly affect the way people judge Olympic Games. 5. How the Essay Would Be Different If It Were To Be Written As a Traditional Argument Traditional arguments would make the essay different by arguing that Olympic Games ought to be rotated to all countries, as an artifice to attaining world peace and strengthening cordial international relations.

Objective 2Identifying Elements of Toumlin’s Arguments 1. Summarizing the Position That the Essay Takes As Three-Part Argument The second argument makes the claim that flag-burning should be constitutionally preserved. Some of the grounds that are made to back the claim are that: flag-burning is part of the freedom of speech and expression; and that these freedoms are the initial-most provisions of the Bill of Rights. Other grounds include: flag-burning is a way of criticizing the government; criticizing the government is a basic form of defense against a tyrannical government; the act was enshrined in the First Amendment by the US Supreme Courts; and withdrawing flag-burning will pose restrictions on liberty and compromise property laws.

The warrant presented herein is that flag-burning is a legitimate expression of American civil liberties and free speech. 2. Whether the Writer Includes Enough Backing Of His Claim The writer produces enough backing of his claims since he adduces many reasons why flag-burning is legitimate and should not be criminalized. For instance, he backs his claim by asserting that flag-burning is a way of criticizing the government; criticizing the government is a basic form of defense against a tyrannical government; the act was enshrined in the First Amendment by the US Supreme Courts; and, withdrawing flag-burning will pose restrictions on liberty and compromise property laws.

Other Supporting Evidence He Could Have Included Another piece of supporting evidence that Franco Ghilardi could have used is a historical one. He could have argued that the first time Americans publicly incinerated the American flag, the US government never sought any legal redress. Particularly, during the Vietnam War, neither were the people who burnt the flag in the streets apprehended, nor did the government protest. 3. Finding the Qualifier in the Essay The qualifier is that flag-burning is a legitimate expression of both American civil liberties and free speech.

The qualifier limits the argument by restraining the argument to be either in favor of, or in opposition to it. There is no recourse to the two extremes. Conversely, the writer could have qualified the argument by discussing the (negative) effects withdrawing flag-burning. 4. The writer clearly fails to address enough objections to his claim. Particularly, he takes it for granted that flag-burning is an automatic and the only way of showing dissent. It is obvious that polemicists against flag-burning could have presented rebuttals to the effect that there are many other ways of criticizing the government alongside flag-burning.

These same polemicists could have referred to patriotism as a value against flag-burning, yet the author feigns ignorance to all these. The author is hell-bent on having readers believe that civil dissention is strictly flag-burning and flag-burning is civil dissention. 6. Advantages and Disadvantages That Toumlin’s Logic Gives to Readers Toumlin’s logic empowers readers to present their arguments in a very organized, cogent and systematic manner. This is because the argument has exploited the stating of the claim, the logical defending of the claim by adducing the grounds and the disclosure of the qualifier which tries the claim and the grounds together, Unfortunately, Toumlin’s logic does not give readers any immunity from logical fallacies.

For instance, Ghilardi uses Toumlin’s model of logic but fallaciously intimates that flag-burning is the only and the most express display of civil dissent. Works CitedDeFrantz, L. Anita. “Athletes, Not Politics, Define Olympics.” USA Today, (2008): 19. Print.