Implementing Five-Step Strategy for Critical Reading
Jaydde Craig
HUM/111

Implementing Five-Step Strategy for Critical Reading
Five-Step Strategy for Critical Reading
Please refer to pages 73-77 in The Art of Thinking for this assignment.
Step One: Skim the Article * Take five minutes and skim the following article. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/08/stand-your-ground-law-survives-florida-house-vote/
Step Two: Reflect on Your Views * What ideas do you have about this subject that could create a bias for or against the author’s view and prevent me from giving it a fair hearing? Please explain in 25-50 words.

This article comes across as bias. The facts reported, are more about emotional responses from Rep. Matt Gaetz argued that the law had helped reduce the number of homicides in the state of Florida since its passage. There is no evidence of this stated in this article. It is compiled of remarks by various people that come from an emotional point of view and offer no statistics, proof, quotes, or anything that gives a convincing argument that this is a unbiased review.

Step Three: Read the Work
Step Four: Evaluate What You Read * Identify the issue of the article in 25- to 50-words. The issue of the article is that Florida legislators defeated an effort to repeal the state's controversial "stand your ground law" following hours of passionate testimony. It is emotional response and not based on any facts. In one part of the article the phrase sparked accusations used in regards to Zimmerman racially profiling Martin. This is not a fact but a speculation.

* In this article, the author uses words that are open to more than one meaning. Please provide examples and explain in 25- to 50-words. One of the words found in the article is the word right. The definition of right has several meanings. Defined as being correct, opposite of the left, or a moral or legal entitlement. In this article is also the word far. The definition of far can be used as a description for distance, or a remote or advanced time. Another definition is; as a great deal or too much.

* In this article, the author use emotionally charged language or quotes as substitutes for evidence. Please provide examples and explain in 25- to 50-words. “How ca an unarmed citizen defend themselves against an armed lunatic with a delusional sense of danger?” said Representative Slosberg. This quote is loaded with emotion. Anger is one of them and implying that Zimmerman is a lunatic and delusional. Lucia McBath states “Florida has become the poster child of senseless gun violence.” She implies that the state of Florida is out of control concerning gun violence. Again, this is an opinion and not a fact based statement, just as the one by Representative Slosberg’s was.

* Is the author’s evidence relevant to the issue? Why or why not? Please explain in 25- to 50-words. The evidence presented in this article is not relevant to the issue. At the end of the article, the author says that the House Criminal Justice subcommittee voted against the “stand your ground” repeal but was in favor of Florida’s “10-20-Life” mandatory sentencing law that allows for people to fire warning shots to avoid this law. The last sentence of the article says ‘The legislation was pushed in wake of the 20-year sentence given to a Florida woman who fired a shot at her estranged husband during an argument. This has nothing to do with the issue either’.

* What criticisms and counterarguments would someone who holds a different position make about this article? Please explain in 25- to 50 words. There are statements made in the article that declare that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin. There is no real evidence of this in the article and someone could easily say that this was a way to start racial tensions. I already believe that the media did capitalize on this when the case was in the forefront of the news. As stated in the previous questions, this article seems to be emotion based as opposed to fact based. The only facts that not disputed is the defeat of the repeal. The second fact is that House committee voted decisively 11-2 against the repeal. There are too many open-ended questions.

* Does the author commit any errors in logic? If yes, please provide examples and explain. I do not think there are any errors in logic. The author seems to be just recapping events that took place but does not add any thoughts or opinions to critique.

Step Five: Express Your Judgment * Do you agree, disagree, or agree in part/disagree in part with the author? Please explain in 100- to 150-words. It seems that the author of this article is trying to get across that “stand your ground” will only lead to more senseless killings and the argument that I felt threatened will be misused anytime someone is sensibly killed. Most of the testimony he uses are from people that share the same opinion on the subject, which would be that it would be an excuse for people to commit violent acts so they can argue that the felt threatened. I am not sure if I agree with this. Human behavior seems to show that when a person knows that he or she might have the treat of physical encounter with another person, tend to rethink committing a crime. People should not have to be victims of senseless violence. A would be criminal is thinking of breaking into a home, reconsideration might be taken if there is a chance that the homeowner is armed.