Register to read the introduction…
| The principal issue presented by this source is that the United States is not justified in invading Iraq. | 2 | Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. | There were no examples of bias presented by the author. Following the eight principle arguments stated by author Stephen Zunes, a rebuttal is given. | 3 | Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this. | The statement “Iraq’s armed forces are barely one-third their pre-Gulf War strength.” is vague. There is no way to measure the exact strength of the Iraqi armed forces in 2003 because the pre-Gulf War strength is not disclosed. | 4 | Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning. | I find the source credible. Preceding the article it stated that “Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, Middle East editor of the Foreign Policy in Focus website (www.fpif.org), and the author of Tinder Box: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism.” | 5 | Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. | The author uses a rhetorical a hyperbole at the end of the article. He writes “The Arab foreign ministers, aware of such possibilities, warned at their meeting in Cairo that a US. invasion of Iraq would “open the gates of hell.”” “open the gates of hell” is an exaggeration of what would happen if the US invaded Iraq. | 6 | Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. | The author uses the scare tactic fallacy when he states that “…in the chaos of a US. Invasion and its aftermath, the chances of such weapons being smuggled out of the country into the hands of terrorists would greatly increase.” | 7 | State one argument made by the author.
…show more content…
| Zunes makes the argument that a US invasion of Iraq is not justified because the US can not prove that the Iraqi government has an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, supports terrorism or has the desire to attack the US. | 8 | Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument. | The premise “there is no credible evidence that the Iraqi government supports terrorism, has developed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or intends to harm U.S. interests through military actions.” The conclusion is “A U.S. invasion of Iraq is not justifies” | 9 | Is the author’s argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this. | The author makes a valid, sound and strong argument. The conclusion is supported by the premise. If it is believed that the premise is true, there is no way the conclusion would be false. | 10 | Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this. | Yes. The author gives many moral reasons why he believes an invasion on Iraq would be wrong. | Source 2 Title and Citation: | Clinton, Bill. "U.S. Military Strikes on Iraq Are Justified." The Middle East. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. Document URL http://ic.galegroup.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010229223&mode=view&userGroupName=uphoenix&jsid=bc801d7d98e999f2fa920a332c992f07 | 1 | Identify the principal issue presented by the source. | The principal issue presented by this source is that US military strikes on Iraq are justified. | 2 | Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. | Bill Clinton exhibits his bias against Saddam Hussein when he says “There is no more clear example of …show more content…
If none exist, explain how you determined this. | Bill Clinton used a personal attack ad hominem when he said “ Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment.” He also used scare tactic when he said “And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use that arsenal.” and in his argument “We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information, and ideas.”
| Zunes makes the argument that a US invasion of Iraq is not justified because the US can not prove that the Iraqi government has an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, supports terrorism or has the desire to attack the US. | 8 | Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument. | The premise “there is no credible evidence that the Iraqi government supports terrorism, has developed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or intends to harm U.S. interests through military actions.” The conclusion is “A U.S. invasion of Iraq is not justifies” | 9 | Is the author’s argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this. | The author makes a valid, sound and strong argument. The conclusion is supported by the premise. If it is believed that the premise is true, there is no way the conclusion would be false. | 10 | Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this. | Yes. The author gives many moral reasons why he believes an invasion on Iraq would be wrong. | Source 2 Title and Citation: | Clinton, Bill. "U.S. Military Strikes on Iraq Are Justified." The Middle East. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. Document URL http://ic.galegroup.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010229223&mode=view&userGroupName=uphoenix&jsid=bc801d7d98e999f2fa920a332c992f07 | 1 | Identify the principal issue presented by the source. | The principal issue presented by this source is that US military strikes on Iraq are justified. | 2 | Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. | Bill Clinton exhibits his bias against Saddam Hussein when he says “There is no more clear example of …show more content…
If none exist, explain how you determined this. | Bill Clinton used a personal attack ad hominem when he said “ Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment.” He also used scare tactic when he said “And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use that arsenal.” and in his argument “We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information, and ideas.”