Analyzing and Argument
The Author’s Argument
The author is arguing that Otto T. Goat’s argument that blacks are correlated to the high crime in the United States is racist because crime is instead reliant on various confounding variables such as socio-economic status.
How the Author Constructs His Argument
The author uses an implicit argument. He weaves together facts, stories, logic, statistics, and experiences without using a clear thesis. He endeavors to sell his argument to the reader by using evidence of different kinds.
Evaluation of the Author’s Argument
The author’s argument is mostly fair and balanced, with little aspects of emotion and the use of loaded language. The author does not exhibit bias on the basis of interest because it is not evident that he is black. However, it is obvious that he does not like racists and to a point, gets emotional although he tries to downplay this by actually mentioning he is not going to be moved. A little bias is also evident in his use of loaded language, where he refers to Otto as Hitler. This argument is more one-sided than two-sided, with little contradictory information included. The author gives himself enough space and avoids distractions. The counter-argument presented in the form of Otto’s replies, and such is so minimal that the reader does not get the time to relate or make any importance of Otto’s claims. The author uses a considerable chunk of the information in favor of his stand on the issue. He does little to highlight the criticism or any information that favors the point of view taken by the opposition. However, the author does not do this because he is unable to refute these claims since he does with a lot of energy. Maybe he does this to maintain clarity and consciousness, which sells his credibility to the reader. The author takes it as his obligation to represent the idea that associating crimes with race is a misplaced notion that is nothing short of racist. His positive bias does not allow him to risk educating the reader about the information that supports the opposite view that has not already been considered.
The author uses a very reliable and relevant premise. He then goes on to explain these premises profoundly and thoroughly. The argument does not present contradictory points. The author moves step by step, maintaining the same course for the argument. The evidence explains why alternative views are subordinate to what the author supports. The premises the author uses are fulfilling and do not require further justification, and they do not beg any questions.
Additional Materials Used and how each is related to the Author’s Argument
The author does not ignore the burden of proof. In various instances, however, he makes assertions but the most part of the argument, especially where evidence is relevant, he offers. He uses evidence to allow for professional judgment and understands its usefulness in strengthening his claim and providing support for his point to generate a conclusion. One example is meta-analysis done by one Professor Miron Zukerman, whose relevance to the topic is not clear. The author, by this point, does not clearly connect the evidence with the argument, and if he does, he has already lost readers because they can honestly not discern what he is looking for with citing this reference. One research by Ulmer et al. supports the author’s claims by indicating that there are other factors stronger than race that influence the possibility of acting violently. Another by wiki shows that as the author had mentioned earlier, socio-economic factors, notably poverty, is the reason blacks have more crime statistics.
He also uses the conclusion of a study from 1996 and two from 2003 that say the difference in privileges is the reason for different rates of crime between white and black people. The author, however, uses various statistics, which can be translated as evidence throughout the paper but does appropriately cite them to give them professional value. By just providing statistics and information without connecting them to a credible source, to a certain level, renders them valueless. Although using the kind of information the author uses makes the premises more than assertions, ignoring proof of origin and providing a logical relationship between an argument and conclusion, the author neglects his duty to support his assertions.
Objective(S) Best Related To This Article
Evaluating the purpose of arguments
The Administration of Justice
After completing this takedown exam, the role of racial profiling and discrimination in the delivery of justice has become more clear. Because of the mindset of people like Otto who believe black people have the disposition to commit a crime, they are profiled during an investigation, mistreated during apprehension and in custody, or harsher sentences being imposed on this population. Because people believe that black people are violent, police officers have to use brutal force to apprehend a black man despite how he acts during an arrest. Also, in the face of a jury, one that especially has a group of white people as jurors, the black man is never offered the benefit of the doubt, and the law that one is innocent until proven guilty is considerably undermined. When a black man is at the center of a criminal investigation or is a person of interest, the discriminatory response from white people most is that they must have committed the crime. “Guilty until proven innocent.”
Black people have been subject to unwarranted surveillance, abuse, discriminatory sweeps, and searches. The reason why most African Americans are arrested with marijuana as compared to white people who use the drug by a bigger proportion is the fact that police are more willing to apprehend a black man, search his pockets and go through his car. If white people faced the same level of scrutiny, then most would go to jail for possession of marijuana as compared to the current statistic. Also, it is easier for a police officer to believe that a white person has weed as a prescription than he would with a black man. It will be easier for them to arrest the man take time to reason with them the same way an officer would with a white man.