Views Analysis Article 1 Proposal: No Man’s Sky and Gamers as Entitled

  1. The topic or subject area  of the views-journalism items you are proposing to deal with in your 1st written assignment

 

The analysis article would examine video game journalists’ attitude to No Man’s Sky, a science fiction game recently released that has been argued to be overhyped and failing to deliver on promises the developers made – the piece would analyse views article on the game and it’s marketing from three of the biggest video game media outlets – Polygon, Kotaku and Next Media’s gaming news site Hyper.

  1. The headline/title/name etc of the items  (or a brief designator if a broadcast item) and information on where and when they were published/broadcast

 

No Man’s Sky:

  • If the items you are going to be discussing are available online, then provide links to the relevant web pages.
  •  

    1. One paragraph summarising what you believe are going to be your primary conclusions – i.e.what you anticipate will be the main point of your intended article.

     

    I believe I will come to the conclusion that all three authors will argue that they expected more from the game and believe the constant feed of trailers, interviews and little hands-on experience prior to the release convinced the community to have unreasonably high expectations that the game would never deliver on. They will use a mixture of facts and evaluations at most, and will briefly recommend strategies both players and developers can use in the future to avoid overhyping, or even detail the potential negative consequences – or at least evaluate the ramifications – of the game being overhyped.

     

     

    Assessment: Proposal for Individual Presentation

    1. The topic or subject area of the views-journalism items you are proposing to deal with in your 1st written assignment.

     The topic/subject that I will be addressing in the two chosen views-journalism articles fall under the umbrella of ‘gender equality’ – sexism and same-sex marriage.

    1. The headline/name of the items and information on where and when they were published.
    1. a) “Why women-only ride-sharing is revolutionary” by Deirdre Fidge

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-26/women-share-why-women-only-ride-sharing-services-are-important/7787312

    1. b) “What can the Australian Christian Lobby do with their $7.5 million?”

    http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/article/2016/08/03/what-can-australian-christian-lobby-do-their-75-million

    These two articles were published earlier this month, thus reflecting the issue being explores are ‘fresh’ and ‘current’ in the news. They were also selected from news channels that I follow and remain up-to-date with.

    1. If the items you are going to be discussing are available online, then provide links to the relevant pages.

    I have provided the links above in Question 2. Most of our news is accessed online, besides television programs, especially amongst younger audiences, such as myself, due to the mobility of technology. Therefore, I have chosen online articles as they are more flexible to access and record as opposed to print media.

    1. One paragraph summarising what you believe are going to be your primary conclusions.

    These two views-journalism articles fall under the issue of gender equality, however, they address the different ways in which gender equality exists: sexism and prejudice towards same-sex marriage. The primary focus will be on evaluating the justifications provided by the authors in support of their principal claim. Through a critical analysis of the justifications, including a reflection on the underlying warrants, we can see how the use of language is employed to manipulate the fundamental principles of the gender, that is the female and male, in order to influence the reader to support the opinion/argument being presented. Further, it will also provide a deep insight into how the employment of such a method undermines the justifications being argued. In other words, both authors have adopted a positive attitude towards gender equality by pitting the gender against the other to justify their principal claim. As a result, the primary conclusions will be on the importance of recognising the need for strong justifications for an opinion or argument.

    Views analysis article 1: Step 1

    By Danielle Armour

     

    1. The topic or subject area  of the views-journalism items you are proposing to deal with in your 1st written assignment

     

    The topic I have chosen comes under the branch of sports journalism and the discrimination faced by certain athletes in the lead up to and during the 2016 Rio Olympic Games. My particular focus is in track 800m athlete Caster Semenya and the debate over her being allowed to compete in female events. Semenya has a condition known as hyperandrogenism, an elevated level of testosterone in females. From April 2011 to July 2015, female athletes with the condition were forced by the IAAF to take hormones to lower their testosterone in order to be eligible for competition.

     

     

    1. The headline/title/name etc of the items  (or a brief designator if a broadcast item) and information on where and when they were published/broadcast

    NB: Currently undecided which 2 of these articles I will use

    1. “Caster Semenya and the logic of Olympic competition”

    By Malcolm Gladwell and Nicholas Thompson

    Published by The New Yorker, AUGUST 12, 2016

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/caster-semenya-and-the-logic-of-olympic-competition

    2. “The ignorance aimed at Caster Semenya flies in the face of the Olympic spirit”

    By Katrina Karkazis

    Published by The Guardian Online 23 August 2016

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/23/caster-semenya-olympic-spirit-iaaf-athletes-women

    3. “Why Caster Semenya and Dutee Chand deserve to compete ( and win) at Rio 2016

    By Silvia Camporesi

    Published by The Conversation, August 10, 2016

    https://theconversation.com/why-caster-semenya-and-dutee-chand-deserve-to-compete-and-win-at-rio-2016-63727

     

    1. One paragraph summarising what you believe are going to be your primary conclusions – i.e.what you anticipate will be the main point of your intended article.

    I believe that the primary conclusions that will be made through my analysis will revolve around the differeing world views of the authors. The difference if viewpoints in the articles ultimately comes down what is considered a competitive edge in competition. Arguments for Semenya to race point to the idea that she is being discriminated against as she does not fit into the stereotypical picture of womanhood, therefore highlighting the underlying sexism in society. Those who are against Semenya competing argue that the issue is not her womanhood, she can identify as whatever gender she wishes, but rather that she has an unfair genetic advantage over the rest of the field.

    Views Journalism Analysis 1 Proposal: Amelia Chadwick H12A

     

    – The topic or subject area of the views-journalism items you are proposing to deal with in your 1st written assignment:

     The topic I have chosen to analyse for this assignment is the media coverage surrounding the lead up to the executions of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran of the Bali Nine.

    • Specifically, I will explore the two main oppositional stances commonly adopted by the media during the period:
      • a) Supporting the decision of the Indonesian government to apply the death penalty
      • b) Condemning the decision of the Indonesian government to apply the death penalty

    – The headline/title/name etc of the items  (or a brief designator if a broadcast item) and information on where and when they were published/broadcast:

    Article #1 Title: OPINION: ‘Bali Nine ringleaders deserve to die’

    Article #2 Title: Bali nine duo executions: Two wrongs don’t make a right

    – One paragraph summarising what you believe are going to be your primary conclusions – i.e.what you anticipate will be the main point of your intended article.

    • The main point of my article (as I understand it to be at present) will be to analyse these two very negatively geared articles (with oppositional stances) as to whether Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran of the Bali Nine ‘deserve to die’ (note: this is not ‘deserved’, as the articles are from the media coverage prior to their execution).
    • Though both articles address readers with the assumption they do not support the Indonesian Government’s decision to follow through with the death penalty, the first article attempts to persuade readers that the decision was ‘fair’, as the two men are criminals who ‘knew the law and the consequences that came with breaking those laws’. On the other hand, the second article takes an oppositional view, describing Indonesia’s follow-through of their law as an ‘egregious, stomach-turning decision by a neighbouring government to murder two young Australians’,
    • My aim is to analyse these two arguments and evaluate the similarities and differences by comparing claims, justifications and warrants, and taking into account how their arguments are shaped by different world views and ingrained opinions.

    Views journalism analysis 3 proposal

    1. The topic or subject area  of the views-journalism items you are proposing to deal with in your 1st written assignment

    Items on the following politics related topics. 

    • the performance, character or popularity of politicians and/or political parties
    • the policies of political parties
    • political protest and/or activist campaigns
    • the election compaign

    2. The headline/title/name etc of the items  (or a brief designator if a broadcast item) and information on where and when they were published/broadcast & 3. If the items you are going to be discussing are available online, then provide links to the relevant web pages.

    -“EUROPES MIGRANT CRISIS: EIGHT REASON IT’S NOT WHAT YOU THINK” on the theglobeand mail.com

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europes-migrant-crisis-eight-reasons-its-not-what-youthink/article26194675/

    -“WHY ARE PEOPLE MIGRATING TO EUROP REFUGEE CRISIS SYRIA’ on fusion. net
    http://fusion.net/story/190597/why-are-people-migrating-to-europe-refugee-crisis-syria/

    4. One paragraph summarising what you believe are going to be your primary conclusions – i.e.what you anticipate will be the main point of your intended article.

    since the migrant become a big problem in politics, more and more articles are talking about this issue on both good and bad sides, i am decided to anaysis the reasons why people migrating to europ through two articles.

    (still no sure about the topic, might change)

    Assignment 1 proposal – Adam Goodes and racism

    The topic or subject area of the views-journalism items you are proposing to deal with in your 1st written assignment

     The topic I will be dealing with is the controversy surrounding racism and AFL player Adam Goodes.

    The headline/title/name of the items (or a brief designator if a broadcast item) and information on where and when they were published/broadcast

    Item 1:

    Fans have no good reason to boo Sydney champion Adam Goodes by Richard Hinds, published in The Daily Telegraph on July 29, 2015 10:40am

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/afl/fans-have-no-good-reason-to-boo-sydney-champion-adam-goodes/news-story/6b46a6e88770b376302063044665a76d

    Item 2:

    Man Up? I see a man down: booing and being Adam Goodes by Daryl Adair published on The Conversation on August 1, 2015 2.50am AEST

    http://theconversation.com/man-up-i-see-a-man-down-booing-and-being-adam-goodes-45536

    One paragraph summarising what you believe are going to be your primary conclusions – i.e.what you anticipate will be the main point of your intended article.

     For two pieces primarily arguing for the same side (in support of Adam Goodes), they certainly take two contrasting approaches. Hinds’ piece immediately launches into an assault, distancing himself from the ‘fools’, immediately establishing an ‘us versus them’ mentality. He makes his position very clear and writes in a fast-paced tone which is almost hostile; simply quoting the most common opposing arguments (of the ‘fools’), and immediately rebutting them without hesitation. The piece is laced with elements of sarcasm designed to mock those who oppose his case, for example the line ‘you can only imagine the terror that hundreds of people sitting amid a crowd of like-minded fans yelling abuse at a footballer from behind a fence must feel when the subject of their taunts hurls an imaginary spear’.

    In sharp contrast, Adair’s piece is far more measured, and perhaps more considerate of those on the opposing side. Unlike Hinds, he doesn’t leap to conclusions and fiercely battle for one side; instead opting to present balanced arguments and quote those from both sides without (too much) mockery. His method of presenting argument is entirely different. Despite this more balanced approach, it becomes evident quite early on in the piece which side Adair is arguing for. While he doesn’t state his claim explicitly, his use of select words throughout the piece subtly suggest that he supports Goodes, and is disappointed with the behaviour of those who boo him.

    In essence I will be explaining how the two pieces contrast, whilst in the support of the same argument.

    Sleep Deprivation: War Interrogation – Francesca, Raiyan, Frances

    1. The text’s central argumentative point is that sleep deprivation is an immoral and torturous practice that goes against the ethical aim of war interrogation (to combat terrorism and enable world peace). The text is a combination of both factual and evaluative arguments. McPhedran passes judgement on the morality of the practice of sleep deprivation and the opinions put forward by members of the Australian Government and other significant figures. At the same time, factual claims such as the scientific facts about the physical harm caused by sleep deprivation were used by McPhedran to further generate his evaluations and arguments on Ruddock’s unwarranted opinion, and the immorality of sleep deprivation itself.
    2. The author puts forward more of an argumentation rather than general, personal opinion. This is evident through the author’s factual claims and evaluations of these significant figures that are followed by a causal link/statement that seeks to prove or make judgement. McPhedran uses these claims put forward by these figures, to generate debate on the topic (argumentative debates) and thus express the main claim. However, the author’s opinion is slightly echoed in the following sentence “Australian Federal Police boss Mick Keelty provided a better informed response.”
    3. The author does not explicitly state his central argument throughout the text, as he uses different personalities’ comments on the interrogation method to generate these arguments and underlying thoughts within the reader. However, the final paragraph can be seen as a summary of his central claim, and the underlying argument.
    4. I agree with the reading and believe that the author tries to give a stipulative definition of torture by including sleep deprivation within that definition to solidify his point. The central claim revolves around the understanding that sleep deprivation causes pain and pain is torture. Another contentious term with a stipulative definition is interrogation, McPhedran tries to construct the term’s definition to exclude torture in order justify his claim.
    5. Article’s primary claim here:Sleep deprivation is an immoral war interrogation method and form of torture that should not be usedJustification 1: (type: appeal to social norms)[because] it goes against the purpose of war interrogation which is to combat terrorism and promote world peace.

      Justification 2: (type: appeal to authority)

      And claims by those in favour of it lack the personal experience/authority to place such immoral judgement.

    6. Article’s primary claim here: Sleep deprivation is an immoral war interrogation method and form of torture that should not be used during warJustification 1: [because] it goes against the purpose of war interrogation which is to combat terrorism and promote world peace.Warrant for Justification 1: Sleep deprivation does not aid the quest for world peace, it shares common values with the enemy we are fighting.

      Justification 2: And claims by those in favour of it lack the personal experience/authority to place such immoral judgement.

      Warrant for Justification 2: Only those with credibility and authority can truly place opinion on the ethics of sleep deprivation.

    7. “Exactly what Attorney- General Philip Ruddock was doing even commenting is unclear, let alone supporting the practice as a means of getting information out of terrorist suspects. Ruddock has been a Liberal member of Parliament since 1973. Before that he was a Sydney solicitor. He has presumably enjoyed a comfortable night’s sleep, many of them at taxpayer expense, most nights for the past 33 years.”There is no textual correspondence or justification between Ruddock’s comments supporting sleep deprivation and the following retaliating paragraph. It is solely the author’s sarcastic and demeaning opinion on Ruddock’s ethical mindset. This can be seen as an example of Ad Hominem.

    Sleep Deprivation Debate: Torture or Semantics – By Ryan Mahon and Jingxuan Chi

     

    Question 1:

    The central argumentative point is politicians should not support sleep-deprivation as a method of interrogating terror suspects as it is seen as a form of torture.

    The article’s central argumentative point is based on a claim of evaluation as a value author of the article has passed judgement onto Phillip Ruddock and his assertions about sleep deprivation not constituting torture. McPhedran then contrasts Phillip Ruddock’s statement with a statement made by the Prime Minister of the time, John Howard, who does not support sleep deprivation in all cases of interrogation.

     

    Question 2:

    Opinion is used in terms of the character assassination of Phillip Ruddock, as the article repeatedly criticises him without backing up the claims with significant reference. McPherson only attributes a seven-word quote to Ruddock and based an entire article off of that quote. McPherson’s attack on Phillip Ruddock would have to constitute opinion.

    An example of this is in the second paragraph when Ian says, “Before that he was a Sydney solicitor. He has presumably enjoyed a comfortable night’s sleep, many of them at the taxpayer’s expense, most night for the past 33 years”, he was making an assumption about Ruddock and implied that he would not understand the pain of sleep deprivation because he has a had a comfortable life thanks to the taxpayer.

    However, I would consider McPherson’s arguments regarding the definition of sleep deprivation as torture or interrogation is grounded in research. The author quotes the United Nations, uses an analogy from a World War Two digger, attributes information from the Australian Federal Police and from the Prime Minister at the time. The primary purpose of this section of the article is the persuade the readership with an argument using information from the sources cited above. Therefore, we believe that generally, this article is more an argument than it is an opinion piece.

     

    Question 3:

    Yes, the author has explicit asserted the statement of the text’s principal argument, being that sleep deprivation is a form of torture. The author has most likely assumed that the readership would not all have a deep-enough knowledge on the subject, but that, given the global political climate at the time, would have been opposed to the notion of torture, but they may have been unaware of the semantics of what torture is.

    In paragraph 4 McPherson wrote, “In 197, the United Nations Committee Against Torture specifically rules that the extended deprivation of sleep did indeed constitute torture” to indicate his stand in classifying sleep deprivation as torture. Since he associates sleep deprivation with torture, he is implying to his readership that he is opposed to all forms of torture, including sleep deprivation.

     

    Question 4:

    The key contentious definition in the article e was sleep deprivation as McPherson outlines the impact it has on the human body. This definition is heavily supported with McPhedran’s own justification as he alludes to what he constitutes as sleep deprivation several times throughout the article from the third par until the final par of the article.

    A contentious definition in the article is torture. As the definition of torture would result in determining whether or not sleep deprivation can be categorised as torture. The definition that the author has used is one that is widely accepted by the international community, but it still one that is concordant with the views in his article.

    Interrogation has also been loosely defined as a tool used when interviewing terror suspects. The definition provides a comparison between interrogation and torture with the assertion that interrogation is the, ‘lesser of two evils’ or a more humane option than torture in the war on terror.

     

    Question 5:

    Article’s primary claim: Sleep deprivation is considered a form of torture and governments should stop trying to justify it.

    Justification 1: (type- Appeal to authority)

    ‘In 1997, the United Nations Committee Against Torture specifically ruled that the extended deprivation of sleep did indeed constitute torture.’ – The United Nations is a global authority and they should set a precedent for what countries can and cannot do.

    Justification 2: (type- Appeal to ethical, legal or other social norms [negative consequences])

    ‘Interrogation is an important tool in the fight, but politicians shouldn’t try to justify torture and therefore lower us to the level of our enemies.’ – Notion that we as a society have civil and moral responsibilities to everyone in society, even those that we are detaining. There is an allusion to the golden rule.

    Sub-Claim: Politicians are out of touch with society

    Justification 1: (type- analogy)

    ‘…when politicians leave their ivory towers’- Implies that politicians are out of touch with their constituency.

    Justification 2: (type- ethical norms)

    ‘NEW lows in political cant and hypocrisy have been reached in the debate over sleep deprivation and whether it qualifies as torture’ – Critiquing the ethical practices of politicians and how they reach their policy outcomes and how they form their outlooks on the world.

    Question 6:

    Justification 1 Warrant: We should trust the authority of the United Nations (as an IGO).

    Justification 2 Warrant: It is wrong to torture people and hypocritical to try justifying it.

    Question 7:

    • “Before that he was a Sydney solicitor. He has presumably enjoyed a comfortable night’s sleep, many of them at taxpayers’ expense, most nights for the past 33 years.” We believe that this is Ad Hominem argument because this is implying that he is justifying torture because Ruddock has never suffered any discomfort himself.
    • It would have to be the opinion of McPhedran that, ‘new lows in political cant and hypocrisy’ have been achieved because it would be something difficult to quantify and would depend on the view of the reader. The author has simply used this to try to add veracity to his argument, without backing up his claim.
    • The information regarding the effects of sleep deprivation have not attributable source, as I believe McPhedran would be assuming the readership would take this information in good faith. I do not believe that this would negatively impact on his argument.

    Is Torture Fair Game? Analysis

    1. What is the nature of the text’s central argumentative point? Is it a claim of fact, causality, evaluation, interpretation or recommendation, or some combination of two or more of these – or something entirely different? (Provide a few sentences here.)

     

    The text’s central argumentative point is that the interrogation techniques used by governments on terrorist suspects is akin to the torture methods used by Islamic fundamentalist —the very people the government is trying to differentiate from. The article employs a combination of fact, recommendation and evaluation.

     

    1. How much simple opinion (the expression of the author’s viewpoint without any supporting argumentation) is there is the text? Would you classify the text as being more opinion or more argumentation? (a few sentences)

     

    The text is more argumentative than opinionated, as most of the author’s assertions are supported by quotes and factual evidence. Even lines such as, “He has presumably enjoyed a comfortable night’s sleep, many of them at taxpayer expense, most nights for the past 33 years”, avoid speculation through the employment of terms such as, ‘presumably.’

     

    1. Does the author offer an explicitly asserted statement of the text’s principal argumentative point? (briefly discuss)

     

    No, the author does not offer an explicitly asserted statement of the text’s principal argumentative point. The author might assume the audience will largely share their viewpoint or worldview, which sleep deprivation should be banned because it is regarded as a torture.

     

    1. Are there any contentious terms in the text and, if so, does the author offer any stipulative definitions of these? To what extent are any such definitions supported with their own justification? (a few sentences)

     

    ‘Sleep deprivation’ may be regarded as a contentious term, as individuals such as the Attorney- General Philip Ruddock and PM John Howard, “don’t regard sleep deprivation as torture”, which contrasts the United Nations Committee Against Torture’s definition of torture. As such, the author offers a range of side-effects of sleep deprivation: “hinders the ability of red blood cells to carry oxygen to the brain causing fatigue, lapses in memory, lethargy, muscular pain and, in severe cases, loss of consciousness.” While not a ‘definition’, the list does support the author’s justification that sleep deprivation is a form of torture.

     

    1. What types of justificatory support (secondary claims) does the author employ and does he seem to favour one type of these? (Express these justificatory claims as a single sentence and set out below in the order win which they occur in the text.) Also see if you can classify each of the justifications as involving one or more of the following justification types.

     

    Article’s primary claim here: Sleep deprivation causes physical and psychological harm.

     

     

    Justification 1: Appeal to ethical, legal or other social norms

     

     

    Justification 2: Appeal to emotion

     

    Justification 3: Appeal to facts

     

     

    Primary claim: Sleep deprivation is an out-dated torture method used on Australian Diggers.

     

    Justification 1: Appeal to precedent, customary practice

     

    Justification 2: Appeal to comparison, analogy

     

     

    Primary Claim: Politicians who claim sleep deprivation is not torture have not endured it themselves and therefore, don’t fully understand it’s mental and physical effects.

     

    Justification 1: Appeal to emotion.

     

     

    Primary Claim: Using sleep deprivation to interrogate suspected terrorists lowers us to the level of terrorists.

     

    Justification 1: Appeal to comparison, analogy

     

    1. Take the list you have just presented as to the text’s justifications, and then state the warrant by which each justification supports or lead to the primary claim of the article. Indicate if any of these are explicitly stated. Also indicate if any of the warrants are supplied with their own argumentative support – i.e. with additional “backing” .

     

    Justification 1: Sleep deprivation causes physical and psychological harm.

    Warrant for Justification 1: Physical and psychological harm is undesirable.

    à Not explicitly stated, no additional backing.

     

    Justification 2: Sleep deprivation is an out-dated torture method used on Australian Diggers.

    Warrant for Justification 2: Out-dated practices are often outmoded due to refined ethics and knowledge.

    à Not explicitly stated, no additional backing.

     

    Justification 3: Politicians who claim sleep deprivation is not torture have not endured it themselves and therefore, don’t fully understand it’s mental and physical effects.

    Warrant for Justification 3: Personal, first-hand experience is essential when making decisions that affect other people.

    à Not explicitly stated, no additional backing.

     

    Justifications 4: Using sleep deprivation to interrogate suspected terrorists lowers us to the level of terrorists.

    Warrant for Justification 3: Terrorists are immoral.

    à Not explicitly stated, no additional backing.

     

     

    1. Does the text contain any informal fallacies? If so, list these and present your justification for negatively characterising them in this way.

     

    Ad Hominem: “He has presumably enjoyed a comfortable night’s sleep, many of them at taxpayer expense, most nights for the past 33 years.”

    Here, the author attacks Philip Ruddock’s lifestyle and career choice, rather than the argument he puts forth.

     

    POLITICAL TORTURE

    Stefanie Blanch, Helena Ladomatos, Caitlin Hely, Grace Parsons, Brianna Kerr

    Pollies Need Wake-Up on Torture – Ian McPhedran

    What is the nature of the text’s central argumentative point? Is it a claim of fact, causality, evaluation, interpretation or recommendation, or some combination of two or more of these – or something entirely different?

    The texts central argumentative point is both evaluative and recommendatory. It evaluates the use of sleep deprivation and whether it constitutes as torture as well as evaluating the role politicians play in making decisions about integration tactics. Furthermore, it is recommendatory in the sense that it uses first-hand accounts of sleep deprivation and facts to entice or endorse a change of behaviour from the government. There is also an employment of fact with the use of medical information and UN statistics.

    How much simple opinion is there in the text? Would you classify the text as being more opinion or more argumentation?

    There is minimal simple opinion in the text as it is more argument focused, however elements of subjectivity are still present. McPhedran makes comment on Ruddock’s behaviour (“he has presumably enjoyed a comfortable night’s sleep, many of them at taxpayer expense”… “the Government’s self-appointed hard man in the war against terrorism.”) which indicates a lack of objectivity and thus opinion. However, the majority of his assessment is well founded and supported by justification which makes the majority of the article classifiably argumentative.

    Does the author offer an explicitly asserted statement of the text’s principal argumentative point?

    The texts principle argumentative point – that sleep deprivation is torture and it should not be used as an interrogation technique by the government – is explicitly stated throughout the article. McPhedran does not assume that the reader is attuned to his standpoint and thus he constantly and overtly reiterates his central claim.

    Are there any contentious terms in the text and, if so, does the author offer any stipulative definitions of these? To what extent are any such definitions supported with their own justification? 

    There are clearly contentious terms within the article, with the author stipulatively defining the concept of ‘torture’ to include ‘sleep deprivation’.  To support his stipulative definition, McPhedran employs a supportive justification; a fact from the United Nations. This appeal to authority indicates McPhedran’s recognition that the term is contentious and that the intended audience may need to be persuaded to align with his argument.

    What types of justificatory support (secondary claims) does the author employ and does he seem to favour one type of these? Also see if you can classify each of the justifications as involving one or more of the following justification types.

    PRIMARY CLAIMS JUSTIFICATION TYPES
    New lows in political cant and hypocrisy have been reached in the debate over sleep deprivation and whether it qualifies as torture. Appeal to ethical, legal or other social norms (torture and human rights issues)

    AND

    Appeal to precedent, customary practice

    (NEW lows have been reached)

    Ruddock is incompetent and his opinion should not respected because he has never experienced sleep deprivation. “He has presumably enjoyed a comfortable night’s sleep, many of them at taxpayer expense, most nights for the past 33 years.” Appeal to popular opinion (politicians and taxpayers money – common phrase that initiates reaction)
    According to the United Nations Committee Against Torture, extended sleep deprivation is constituted as torture. Appeal to authority (the UNCAT ruling)
    War veterans – people that have experienced forced sleep deprivation – believe it is torture. “You don’t know whether you are coming or going. You don’t know whether you are going forwards or backwards”, Mr Gilbert said. Appeal to emotion (detail of extenuating circumstances)

    Take the list you have just presented as to the text’s justifications, and then state the warrant by which each justification supports or lead to the primary claim of the article. Indicate if any of these are explicitly stated. Also indicate if any of the warrants are supplied with their own argumentative support. 

    PRIMARY CLAIMS JUSTIFICATION TYPES WARRANT
    New lows in political cant and hypocrisy have been reached in the debate over sleep deprivation and whether it qualifies as torture. Appeal to ethical, legal or other social norms (torture and human rights issues)

     

    Appeal to precedent, customary practice

    (NEW lows have been reached)

    Sleep deprivation is harmful and should be constituted as torture

    (explicitly stated)

    Ruddock is incompetent and his opinion should not respected because he has never experienced sleep deprivation. “He has presumably enjoyed a comfortable night’s sleep, many of them at taxpayer expense, most nights for the past 33 years.” Appeal to popular opinion (politicians and taxpayers money – common phrase that initiates reaction) People without primary experience should not make comment on serious issues

    (implicitly stated)

    According to the United Nations Committee Against Torture, extended sleep deprivation is constituted as torture. Appeal to authority (the UNCAT ruling) The United Nations is trustworthy

    (implicitly stated)

    War veterans – people that have experienced forced sleep deprivation – believe it is torture. “You don’t know whether you are coming or going. You don’t know whether you are going forwards or backwards”, Mr Gilbert said. Appeal to emotion (detail of extenuating circumstances) People that have experienced sleep deprivation should be allowed to make comment (explicitly stated)

    Does the text contain any informal fallacies? If so, list these and present your justification for negatively characterising them in this way.

    McPhedran uses an ad homien argument when he attacks the provided views of Ruddock. He says “he has presumably enjoyed a comfortable night’s sleep, many of them at taxpayer expense, most nights for the past 33 years.” This makes the assumption that Ruddock is not qualified to comment on this issue.