Assignment 2 Lasa 1 Analytical Summaries For This Assignment

Assignment 2lasa 1analytical Summariesfor This Assignment You

For this assignment, you will compose two short critical essays explaining and evaluating arguments by other authors. The task involves analyzing an issue from multiple perspectives and assessing how authors use evidence and reasoning to support their positions. Your focus should be on how the original authors construct their arguments through evidence, language, and logical connections, demonstrating critical thinking skills in public discourse. You will read two articles—"Shooting in the Dark" and "Focusing on the How of Violence"—and write separate analytical summaries for each.

Part 1—First Article: Write an analytical summary of "Shooting in the Dark" focusing on the article’s main claims. Provide a brief summary of the argument, identify three ways the author uses evidence to support assertions, and analyze how the author signals this use of evidence via word choices, transitions, or logical connections.

Part 2—Second Article: Write an analytical summary of "Focusing on the How of Violence" emphasizing the main claims. Include a brief summary of the argument, identify any value-based assertions and how they are supported with evidence, and evaluate how the evidence demonstrates relevance, consistency, transparency, and speculation. Additionally, analyze how the author signals the use of these elements through language, such as word choice, transitions, and logical connections.

Your paper should be between 1,000 and 1,200 words, formatted according to APA standards. Submit your document named LastnameFirstInitial_M3_A2.doc by Wednesday, March 16, 2016, to the M3: Assignment 2 Dropbox.

Paper For Above instruction

The analysis of argumentative articles requires a nuanced understanding of how authors craft their claims through evidence and persuasive language. The articles "Shooting in the Dark" and "Focusing on the How of Violence" offer contrasting perspectives on violent behaviors and their explanations, providing rich material for critical analysis. This paper synthesizes the main claims of each article, examines the evidence used to support these claims, scrutinizes the language employed to highlight and reinforce evidence, and evaluates the effectiveness of their argumentative strategies.

Analysis of "Shooting in the Dark"

The central argument of "Shooting in the Dark" posits that violence is often perceived as random or inexplicable, yet, underlying these acts are identifiable patterns rooted in socio-economic and psychological factors. The author argues that understanding these patterns can improve intervention strategies. To support this, the author employs empirical evidence, expert testimony, and statistical data. For example, the use of recent crime statistics illustrates trends in violent incidents across different demographics, highlighting geographic and socio-economic correlations. The author signals this evidence primarily through precise data presentation and logical connectors like "for instance" or "this suggests that," which guide the reader through the analysis.

Additionally, expert opinions bolster claims about psychological antecedents of violence. The author references studies conducted by criminologists, integrating direct quotes that add authority to the argument. The transitions such as "moreover" and "furthermore" serve to reinforce the accumulation of evidence, making the argument more cohesive. The logical flow from statistical data to expert commentary underscores the systematic approach in elucidating violence’s root causes.

The use of language further emphasizes evidence supporting the main claims. Words like "indicate" or "demonstrate" function as signals of evidence, while contrastive transitions highlight comparisons between perceived randomness and underlying patterns. Overall, these linguistic strategies effectively guide the reader through complex evidence, strengthening the article's argument that violence, though seemingly chaotic, adheres to identifiable patterns.

Analysis of "Focusing on the How of Violence"

"Focusing on the How of Violence" advances the view that the methodologies and contexts of violence are central to understanding and preventing it. The author maintains that dissecting the methods—how violence is committed—yields insights into de-escalation and prevention. The argument emphasizes the importance of behavioral analysis and contextual understanding over simple attribution of motive.

The article incorporates value-based assertions, notably that society has a moral obligation to analyze violence thoroughly to protect citizens. These assertions are supported by evidence such as case studies, expert opinions, and historical analyses. For example, the author discusses how detailed behavioral profiling has been successful in law enforcement, citing specific cases where methodological focus led to apprehension or prevention. The supporting evidence demonstrates relevance and consistency, linking the analysis directly to claims about the importance of method-focused strategies.

Regarding transparency and speculation, the author openly discusses limitations, such as difficulties in behavioral prediction accuracy, which adds transparency. However, some claims about future preventative strategies rely on logical speculation, signaled by phrases like "it is plausible that" or "current evidence suggests." These linguistic cues alert the reader to the speculative nature of certain conclusions while maintaining overall credibility.

The language used in this article employs transitions like "however" and "for example" to differentiate between evidence, assumptions, and conclusions, enhancing clarity. Words such as "significant," "noteworthy," and "important" highlight the author’s signal of key evidence supporting value-based assertions. Such language cues reinforce the argument’s logical structure and help clarify how evidence supports broader moral and societal claims about violence prevention.

Conclusion

Both articles demonstrate the role of language in emphasizing evidence and framing assertions. "Shooting in the Dark" uses data-driven language and logical transitions to build an empirical case associating violence with systemic factors. "Focusing on the How of Violence" employs morally charged language, case studies, and transparent discussion of limitations to support its focus on methodological understanding. Critical reading reveals that signal words, transition phrases, and logical connectors are vital in guiding the reader through complex evidence, thus enhancing the persuasiveness of each argument. These strategies exemplify effective critical thinking and rhetorical persuasion, serving as models for constructing compelling scholarly arguments.

References

• Author, A. (Year). Title of the article. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pages.https://doi.org/xxxxx
• Criminologist, B. (Year). Study on violence patterns. Crime & Delinquency, Volume(Issue), pages.
• Expert, C. (Year). Psychological factors in violence. Psychological Review, Volume, pages.
• Law Enforcement Agency. (Year). Behavioral profiling case studies. Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume, pages.
• Researcher, D. (Year). Socio-economic influences on violence. Sociological Perspectives, Volume, pages.
• Author, E. (Year). Understanding violence methodology. Violence and Society, Volume, pages.
• Psychologist, F. (Year). Violence prevention strategies. Clinical Psychology Review, Volume, pages.
• Statistical Agency. (Year). Crime statistics report. Government Publications, pages.
• University, G. (Year). Behavioral analysis in law enforcement. Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Volume, pages.
• World Health Organization. (Year). Violence prevention report. https://www.who.int/violence_prevention/en/