The Logic of Baldwin's Argument

James Balwin, an author and participant in the Civil Rights Movement, made good points in his essay “If Black English Isn’t a Language, the Tell Me, What Is?” on why Black English is a language. He starts by comparing it to other languages in different nations. Saying that “a Frenchman living in Paris speaks a subtly and crucially different language from that of the man living in Marseilles: neither sounds very much like a man living in Quebec” and so forth. By describing this parallel he shows the reader that such language difference exist in other languages and that it is commonly accepted as another form of that language. He goes on to further this argument by explaining why these differences arise. He essentially says that each region or group of people has their own very different life, and therefore requirements from the language they use. From these needs, a new language is created from the old one, one which the speakers can use for their specific needs.

In describing the state of the French language he implies a large reason why Black English wouldn’t be considered a language. He does this when he says that language can be a political issue. He implies that we cannot fully accept Black English into our culture because we have not accepted them into the history of our language and have little interest in preserving the black experiences. He argues this by showing his readers the many effects that African Americans have had on White English. By doing this, the audience can see that the two languages are indeed different and interwoven, both as culturally important as the other. Overall, I believe that Baldwin does a excellent job at logically arguing why Black English is a language.

Annotated Bibliography

Nottingham, Stephen. Eat Your Genes. New York: Zed Books Ltd,1998.

This book was the most comprehensive one that was found on the subject of genetically engineered crops. It provides a two-sided look at every issue and gives the reader all the facts and speculation on a topic, good and bad. The book also specifically addresses many aspects of the subject matter and provides reliable evidence for the claims.

The author is Dr. Stephen Nottingham. He is a biologist who specializes in crop
protection and earned his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge. He has worked on many
projects and jobs where he would gain credible experience with the issues associated with genetically engineered crops. The purpose of the book is to provide readers with all the tools for them to decide whether or not they believe that GE crops are safe. I think that the hidden purpose of the author is to show readers that the technology is still in its infancy and the risks are too great.

This source is going to be very useful to the paper I’m writing because of its in-depth examination of the issue. It goes over many obscure concerns and benefits that most other sources neglect to address. Additionally, since this source is trying to let readers make the choice on their own, it provides unbiased information and very little pathos appeal. This is useful to me, as many of the argumentative articles on this topic are too reliant on pathos to sway their audience and give little usable material for a research paper.

See through the CRAAP

MedlinePlus

Currency
This site looks like its updated pretty often. At the bottom of the page it says the last date where it was updated and it lists today’s date. Each of the links still functions and leads somewhere. I think it’s safe to say that this site is very up to date and is taken care of often.

Relevance
Relevance depends on what the paper is going to be on but I’d say that this is a very versatile website. It has a ton of different subjects and manages to explain them in a way that’s not too basic or complex. I would use this site as a source if I had to write a paper on a medical topic.

Authority
The National Library of Medicine is the source for the information. It’s a trusted source and would be appropriate to use in a research paper. Under their “Quality Guidelines” link they have a list of how they evaluate their information and the sites they link to. They use a system that relies on reviewed and trusted information. They are also a .gov site and don’t have any ads, which helps their legitimacy.

Accuracy
Their information all comes from trusted and reviewed sources, as listed on their “Quality Guidelines” page. Their tone is very professional and all their proof of the accuracy of their data is legitimate.

Purpose
The purpose of the site is purely informational. They state that they don’s support any products and just want to give people access to medical information. They aren’t trying to promote or sell any products and all the information is just stated as fact without any hints of being biased or based on opinion. Reading this site feels similar to reading an encyclopedia.

Global Warming: Is It Really A Crisis?

The article I decided to find logical fallacies in was one I found on foxnews.com called “Global Warming: Is It Really A Crisis?”. The article discusses the hotly contested issue of global warming. It talks about how regulations against carbon emissions are harming us, how many scientists believe global warming is actually nonexistent, and how if it were real that the temperature increase would actually help the world in many ways. Something about this article told me that it would be ripe with logical fallacies …

One of the first arguments made against the regulations made due to global warming is about the rules that mandate that cars must get 35 MPG. The author claims that “The rules will make us poorer, forcing people to buy products that aren’t otherwise the best suited for them.” This logical fallacy is a “non sequitur” because he fails to tell the audience why these rules will make us poor. He skips several important logical steps in determining that conclusion.

The second logical fallacy occurs when the article says, “Are global temperatures rising? Surely, they were rising from the late 1970s to 1998, but ‘there has been no net global warming since 1998.’ Indeed, the more recent numbers show that there is now evidence of significant cooling.” This type of logical fallacy is called “stacking the deck”. The author uses sources that are biased and not credible as scientific evidence that global warming isn’t occurring. He completely ignores all the credible scientific data that is in favor of global warming because he doesn’t want his audience to know about it.

The third logical fallacy is painfully obvious and it seems very ridiculous that the author would even try to slip such a poorly though out argument into his article. He states, “If we believe that man-made global warming is ‘bad,’ we still don’t want to eliminate all carbon emissions. Having no cars, no air conditioning, or no electricity would presumably be much worse than anything people are claiming from global warming.” The author creates a “false dilemma” here by only giving the two extremes of a situation. In all the solutions I’ve heard about for solving global warming I’ve never once hear one so extreme that it calls for immediately cutting out all carbon emissions. The author tries to make his audience think that we have to decide between global warming or technology when that argument couldn’t be further from the truth.

Middle-schoolers get the pill

The article "Middle-schoolers get the pill" was about a middle school in Portland, Maine. The middle school wants to try to prevent teen pregnancy by giving their students, mostly eleven to thirteen years old, access to birth control through the school. There are two major viewpoints shared in this article. The first is that middle-schoolers shouldn't be having sex and by giving them access to contraception the school is encouraging them to do it. One person compared the situation to "dealing with the reality of teen smoking by handing out low-tar cigarettes to the seventh grade".

The other view is the one advocating this new program that the middle school wants to start. They believe that middle-schoolers are having sex anyway so they should be provided with the means to protect themselves. They say that the problems that can come from unprotected and underage sex are too great to just ignore this problem and hope that kids won't have sex. With easy access to contraception they would be lowering the rate of teen pregnancy, which causes kids to drop out of school, and the amount of sexually transmitted diseases.

The article provided one main counterargument against giving these students access to the pill. That was the comparison between handing out contraception and cigarettes to teens. This is not a valid argument because they are two totally different situations that aren’t comparable. Aside from that, it implies that kids will want to have sex just because the school is giving out contraception, which isn’t true at all. A perspective that I feel was overlooked was that of the parents and the kids. These are the two people that will be most affected by this and they didn't even consider what either of these parties think. The parents would especially be an important factor in this issue because they usually have the most influence over school policies.