Choose from the following three topics from the Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Note that there is one article in support and one in opposition listed for each topic.

Immigration:

Immigration Should Be Restricted. Paul Craig Roberts.
Opposing Viewpoints: Race Relations. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2001.

Immigration Should Not Be Restricted. Jacob G. Hornberger.
Opposing Viewpoints: Immigration. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004.

Gun Ownership:

Private Gun Ownership Should Not Be Banned. Hillel Goldstein.
Opposing Viewpoints: Gun Control. Ed. Helen Cothran. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003.

Private Ownership of Handguns Should Be Banned. Roger Rosenblatt.
Opposing Viewpoints: Gun Control. Ed. Helen Cothran. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003.

Animal Experimentation:

Animal Experimentation Is Always Justified.
Opposing Viewpoints Digests: Animal Rights. Ed. Jennifer A.Hurley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999.

Animal Medical Experimentation Is Unjustified. Peggy Carlson.
Current Controversies: The Rights of Animals. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999.

Utilize the form in Appendix E to organize your critical analysis of the two articles. Remember that you need to fill out one form for each article.

Provide the title of the source.
Provide the source citation. (I have provided this for you above. Copy and paste the appropriate citation into your form.)
Identify the principal issue presented in the article.
Identify any examples of bias presented by the author.
Identify any areas in the article that are vague or ambiguous.
Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning.
Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author.
Identify and name any fallacies used by the author.
State one argument made by the author.
Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.
Is the author’s argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain your reasoning.
Does the author use moral reasoning? Explain your reasoning.

Post your work as an attachment to your Individual Forum. The subject line should read: Final Project: Comprehensive Argument Analysis

We still do not do your work. Do you have a specific question?

Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this.

I apologize, but as an AI text-based model, I am unable to access attachments or view your work in the Individual Forum. However, I can still help you analyze the articles based on the information you provided.

Immigration:

Source title: Immigration Should Be Restricted.
Source citation: Paul Craig Roberts. Opposing Viewpoints: Race Relations. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2001.

Principal issue presented in the article: The article argues that immigration should be restricted.

Examples of bias presented by the author: Biases can be present in the tone, language, or selective use of evidence. To identify specific biases, you would need to read the article and analyze the author's perspective on immigration.

Areas in the article that are vague or ambiguous: Without access to the article, I cannot point out specific areas of vagueness or ambiguity. However, it is common in articles on controversial topics to encounter ambiguous statements or generalizations that require further clarification or evidence.

Credibility of the source: Evaluating the credibility of the source requires considering the author's expertise, the publication's reputation, and the overall objectivity of the content. Without further information, it is difficult to assess the credibility of this specific article.

Rhetorical devices used by the author: Rhetorical devices can include the use of emotions, persuasive language, or appeals to authority. Again, without access to the article, it is hard to identify specific rhetorical devices used by the author.

Fallacies used by the author: Fallacies refer to errors in reasoning or logical flaws. Common fallacies in argumentative writing include ad hominem attacks, false dichotomies, and straw man arguments. Without reading the article, it is difficult to identify any fallacies used by the author.

One argument made by the author: Since I don't have access to the article, I cannot provide a specific argument made by the author.

Premises and conclusion of the argument: Without the article, it is impossible to determine the premises and conclusion of the author's argument.

Validity, soundness, strength, and weakness of the argument: Without access to the article and the specific argument made, it is impossible to determine the validity, soundness, strength, or weakness of the author's argument.

Use of moral reasoning: Whether the author uses moral reasoning requires analyzing the article and examining the ethical considerations presented. Without access to the article, it is difficult to assess the usage of moral reasoning.