I Analysis:
Analyze the article: “Censorship or Common Sense” using the Critical Questions in Browne and Keeley:
Here you must “ask and answer” all the critical questions in your analysis of the article in narrative form.
What are the issue and conclusion?
What are the Reasons?
What words or phrases are ambiguous?
What are the value conflicts and assumptions?
What are the descriptive assumptions?
Are there Fallacies in the reasoning?
How good is the evidence supporting the views and arguments?
Are there Rival Causes?
Are the statistics deceptive?
What significant information is omitted?
What conclusions are possible?
II Arguments:
After you have analyzed the article, you will provide one argument in support of a position or claim made by the author and one argument refuting a position or claim. Your arguments should be based on the identification of flaws in the reasoning, not merely opinion. Your arguments should be supported by documented evidence.
1. Argument in support of a position or claim of the proponents or opponents with additional evidence:
2. Argument refuting a position or claim of the proponents or opponents with additional evidence:
How to Solve I Analysis: Analyze the article: “Censorship or Common Sense” using the Critical Questions in Browne and Keeley: Here you must “ask and answer” all the critical questions in your analysis of the arti Nursing Assignment Help
Introduction:
In this assignment, we will be analyzing the article “Censorship or Common Sense” using the critical questions in Browne and Keeley. We will identify the issue and conclusion, reasons, ambiguous words or phrases, value conflicts and assumptions, descriptive assumptions, fallacies in reasoning, evidence supporting views and arguments, rival causes, deceptive statistics, omitted information and conclusions that are possible. We will also provide one argument in support of a position or claim made by the author and one argument refuting a position or claim based on flaws in reasoning and documented evidence.
Answer:
Issue and Conclusion: The issue in the article “Censorship or Common Sense” is whether censorship of television should be increased or not. The conclusion is that increased censorship of TV programs is necessary to protect children from negative influences.
Reasons: The reasons given for the conclusion are that children are exposed to sex, violence, drug, and alcohol abuse on TV and that excessive exposure can lead to negative behavioral changes in children.
Ambiguous words or phrases: There are no ambiguous words or phrases in the article.
Value conflicts and assumptions: The value conflicts in the article are between the freedom of speech and the protection of children. The assumption is that children are vulnerable and need to be protected from harmful media influences.
Descriptive assumptions: The descriptive assumption is that television has a negative influence on children’s behavior.
Fallacies in reasoning: There is a possible appeal to fear fallacy in the article wherein the implication is that failure to increase censorship will lead to negative behavioral changes in children.
Evidence supporting views and arguments: The evidence supporting the argument is that research has shown that excessive exposure to violent and sexual content can negatively impact children’s behavior.
Rival Causes: There may be rival causes such as the influence of peers, family problems, lack of parental supervision, and other socio-economic factors that can affect children’s behavior.
Deceptive statistics: There are no deceptive statistics in the article.
Omitted information: The article does not mention any information about the effectiveness of current censorship policies or the impact of censorship on freedom of expression.
Conclusions that are possible: Possible conclusions are that increased censorship of TV programs can have both positive and negative effects on children’s behavior. While it may protect them from negative influences, it may also impede their critical thinking skills and limit their exposure to diverse perspectives.
Argument in support of a position or claim of the proponents or opponents with additional evidence: One argument in support of the position that increased censorship is necessary is that children exposed to violent and sexual content are more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior, according to studies by the American Psychological Association.
Argument refuting a position or claim of the proponents or opponents with additional evidence: One argument refuting the position that increased censorship is necessary is that censorship can limit the creative expression of artists and limit access to important information. Studies have shown that censorship can also lead to an increase in illegal content distribution and piracy.
