WEEK 5 EXERCISES

Week 5- Exercise 1

 Summarize the key points in the section Strategies for Recognizing Warrants on page 224.
o In written arguments, it’s important to locate a certain sentence that best states the
author’s claim. If that isn’t possible, create a paraphrased sentence of your own on the
author’s claim. Another strategy to recognize a warrant is to consider what audience the
author is writing to. What does the audience have to think to be able to accept the
claim? Another way to recognize a warrant is to recognize what the support is. The
function of a warrant is to link the claim and support together. The last thing that is
helpful is to read the entire piece of writing in order to come to a conclusion as to what
the warrant is.

Week 5- Exercise 2

 What is Eastland’s claim in the article, “Don’t Stop Frisking”? Do you agree with the implied
warrant that constitutionality does not matter as long as a policy is effective? (100 words)
o Eastland’s claim in the article is that Judge Scheindlin’s ruling on the frisking protocol
should be reviewed, because he believes that the current policy of frisking is effective at
keeping people safe. I can respect Eastland’s claim, and I understand where his is
coming from. I think that I can say that policy is very important to uphold, but
constitutionality is equally as important. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. What’s
the point of the constitution, or policies for protection if they are not taken seriously?
What’s the point if all we do is compare one to the other? I think that it’s only fair to try
to improve in both ways, because they are both effective when used correctly.

Week 5- Exercise 3

 Most of you will be using at least one website to support your argument. On pages 354- 371, the
author gives you invaluable advice on how to evaluate websites. Choose a website that you
check often and using the five criteria listed in Evaluating Web-Based Sources (page 359),
evaluate the website (200 words).
o A website that I use frequently is history.com.
 Authority:
 When looking for a specific author, the only thing that appears is
“History.com Editors”. I don’t really know what to think of this, I would
hope that they are professionals and experts in the field. I imagine they
would be, because history.com is a big website that many use for
citations. It appears that there are a variety of historians and
speechwriters, so I would say that the author is credible.
 Accuracy:
 It seems that there is plenty of factual information, and this can be
confirmed through other websites providing the same information. The
website doesn’t provide citations though, which might compromise the
accuracy, but other than that it looks like the website is spot-on with its
information.
 Objectivity:
 There seems to be little to no bias in the articles on history.com. I find
this to be great when it comes to using strictly factual citations if I were
to write an article. It would be interesting if the history.com editors
could provide an emotional element as well.
 Currency:
 The specific article that I’m looking at was originally posted on October
27th, 2009. Even though that was published quite a few years ago, it was
last updated on April 13th, 2020. This is good because it is current
information and accurate.
 Coverage:
 Everything written in the articles were straight to the point and
accurate. I think that it wouldn’t do any harm to add a little bit more
information, but it’s also a good thing to have the article be
straightforward.