Defining And Evaluating Critical Reading Philosophy Essay

Q.What is critical reading ? Why is it important? Is it ever appropriate to read less critically? A. I think critical reading means reading with the purpose of finding deep understanding of an artical or material, whether it is an assamption or not. It is the attitude of analyzing and evaluating what you are reading as the progress, or as the review. It’s kind of critical thinking because critical reading also needs to analyze and evaluate. Learning how to read critically is more difficult than thinking. In the textbook, I have to read an artical at least four times. Before I read detailedly, I need to scan every piece to get the ideas of what main point or argument is. While I read in detail, I need to record what is my thinking, ideas, and questions; I will mark down or underline the important points, sometimes I will write comments too. After the reading, I have to make review, to write summary, to add or delete something from the notes. At last, I should respond to the artical, the author’s methods; this is what I am learning on this week. Critical reading is important because it allows me to take some concepts and do something with reading. Sometimes I read an article and determine an author s purpose. No where in the article is the author going to say, such as “the goal of this article is….. To be a critical reader will be able to read the article and determine what the author thinks his audiences to gain from reading by evaluating. Therefore, critial reading is not reading less critically, opporsitely, we need to read more and more critically.

Q.1 on page 122 If you had to single out one sentence in Wilson’s essay as coming close to stating his thesis, what sentence would that be? Why do you think it states, better than any other sentnece, the thesis of the essay?

A. I pick the sentence from the beginning of the forth paragraph, which is “Our goal should not be the disarming of law-abiding citizens.”, so what should it be? The following sentence answers it: it should be to reduce the number of people who carry guns unlawfully, especially in places–on streets, in taverns–where the mere presence of a gun can increase the hazards we all face. I choose this sentence because I think the thesis of the article is on the first paragraph. It makes me thinking about the reason why the public feel the gun control laws won’t work. The following paragraphs mention the reasons about it. such as the gov doing something wrong “what is worse, any successful effort to shrink the stock of legally purchased guns would reduce the capacity of law-abiding people to defend themselves.”Moreover, why do they make this goal? The author supports some research and examples to support it.

Q.2 on page 122

A. The research as reported shows that displaying or firing guns in self-defense actually prevented crimes or wounded aggressors. “Suppose you were also told that in households where guns may be used defensively, thousands of innocent people are injured, and hundreds are killed–for instance, children who find a loaded gun and play with it.” I would regard these injuries and deaths as a fair tradeoff. Firstly, according to the example, why children can find a gun? It just because guns owners don’t keep their guns locked and unloaded, with ammunition locked in a separate location, or they don’t keep the guns at the safety place which children can not find them. The problem is, if we keep the guns at the secure place, how can we protect ourselves immediately if something happen to us? Do you think you will have time to find the gun and ammo when someone put the gun on you? In these research, Wilson tried to argue with gun control advocates. He used it to prove his points. However, he also looks like suspecting Gary Kleck’s research because he says: “If his estimate is correct, this means that the number of people who defend themselves with a gun exceeds the number of arrests for violent crimes and burglaries.” Perhaps, he thinks there is a discrepancy on the data; otherwise, he won’t say “if correct”.

Q.3 on page 369 find at least 8 fallacies in the statements and explain why they are.

A. 1.”Abortion is murder–and it doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about killing a human embryo or a human fetus.” I think not all killing is murder, of course. Murder is actually a small subset of all killing, which includes accidental homicide, killing in self-defense, suicide, euthanasia, etc. When pro-life activists call abortion “murder,” they are suggesting that abortion fits the definition of murder, namely. However, abortion fails this definition for two reasons. First, abortion is not illegal, and second, mothers hardly feel malice towards their own unborn children.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

2.”Euthanasia is not a good thing, it’s murder–and it doesn’t matter how painful one’s dying may be.” Euthanasia is not totally a murder. Euthanasia is unquestionably one of those issues that raise moral questions and arguments, whether someone is for or against it. Euthanasia means good death or dying well. It’s not murder because it is not a brutal act of killing and it is only administered with the consent of the patient or of his/her family. The definition of murder is to kill brutally or to put an end to.

3.”Never loan a tool to a friend. I did once and never got it back.” It’s not true. You have to consider about why you couldn’t get it back. Did you make a contract or receipt for a loan? Did you find out why your friend didn’t give it gack to you? Maybe they have some reasons that were unable to return.

4.”If the neighbors don’t like our loud music, that’s just too bad. After all, we have a right to listen to the music we like when and where we want to play it.” It is wrong. If you think like this, you must break the law. You have the right to listen to the music, but it’s not any time and anywhere, and you don’t have the right to harass anybody else.

6.”Shoot first and ask questions afterward–is a good epigram for the kind of foreign policy we need.” It’s not totally true. It will kill or hurt innocent people.

9.”The Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco ought to be closed down. After all, just look at all the suicides that have occurred there.” It’s wrong. The bridge is very important;it affects the economy and society in S.F. We can find the other ways to solve the suicidal problem.

11.”Animals don’t have rights any more than do trees or stones. They don’t have desires, either. What they have are feelings and needs.” It’s totally wrong. Don’t forget human is one kind of animals. Animals are also lives, they have desires either– desire to survive. In addition, if we destroy the environments which they live, we will destroy the natural system too.

17.”Two Indians are sitting on a fence. The small Indian is the son of the big Indian, but the big Indian is not the small Indian’s father. How is that possible?” The big Indian adopts the small Indian.

19.”Going to church on a regular basis is bad for your health. Instead of sitting in a pew for an hour each Sunday you’d better off taking an hour’s brisk walk.” Do more exercises regularly can improve your health. Otherwise, you will get disease if you sit more, such as spondylitis.