I used ...
Report shows abstinence-only education program not more effective. (Jan 29, 2004). Women's Health Weekly, p14. Retrieved July 14, 2007, from Health Reference Center Academic via Thomson Gale: http://find.galegroup.com.ezp.mc.maricopa.edu/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=HRCA&docId=A112558864&source=gale&userGroupName=mcc_mesa&version=1.0
- The writer's points are supported by fact. Specifically the results from an independent study conducted by the Minnesota Department of Health.
- Yes, the author uses supporting evidence for the case presented. Keeping in mind that this article and arguement is specifically based on a study and the results that was conducted only in Minnesota.
- The author provides evidence of increased sexual activity among teenagers who have only had abstinence-only sex education programs taught to them. I find it convincing. Unfortunately it is not a study of the U.S. as a whole, but I belive the information is still very useful to my research project.
- I believe that the evidence is good, accurate, unbiased information.
- I don't read any biases in the article. The authors present both sides of the story and do not just talk about being anti-abstinence.
- The author could give more examples by going into greater detail about pregnancy rate and STD spread rate.
- I belive the authors give a balanced veiw on the issue becuase they give both sides of the argument.
- The alternative viewpoints are very briefly discussed.
- There are no visuals, charts, or graphs.
- I feel the writers use valid reasoning, because they are basically just giving information with little personal input.
- I did not catch any logical fallacies.
- I wouldn't say the writer's oversimplified complex ideas.
- The writers represent the ideas of others (the oppossing side) just as fairly and accurately as the side about abstinence-only sex education being bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment