Difference between revisions of "Spring 2010 Critical Thinking Student Sample Work"
Nhalliburton (talk | contribs) m |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
In “The Court’s Blow to Democracy” the author argues that the recent The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a bad decision and should be overturned. The author uses six rationales to defend this conclusion, five of which are arguments, and one is an explanation. The premises of the first argument are that corporations are no longer banned from spending directly on political campaigns, and corporations can threaten to campaign against elected officials that do not vote in the corporation’s favor. The conclusion of this argument is that the court’s decision has opened the door for corporations to use their money to manipulate elections and elected officials. The premises of the second argument are that in 1907 Congress banned corporations from contributing to candidates, and in the 1950’s Congress enacted a broader ban on corporate political spending that was repeatedly reaffirmed over the years. The conclusion of this argument is that the court’s decision radically reverses well-established law and erodes a wall that has stood for a century between corporations and elections. The premise of the third argument is that the founders of this nation warned about the dangers of corporate influence, and that founding fathers knew what was good for the country. The conclusion is that we should listen to the founder’s advice that corporate influence is dangerous. The fourth argument is that corporations are not people and should not be granted the same First Amendment rights as people because they are artificial legal constructs that exist to make money. The fifth argument is that independent expenditures by corporations do cause corruption or the appearance of corruption, for example if Wall Street had threatened to campaign against anyone who opposed their bailout, it would look corrupt. The last rationale and only explanation is that the court’s decision was politically motivated to give Republican candidates an advantage in future elections. | In “The Court’s Blow to Democracy” the author argues that the recent The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a bad decision and should be overturned. The author uses six rationales to defend this conclusion, five of which are arguments, and one is an explanation. The premises of the first argument are that corporations are no longer banned from spending directly on political campaigns, and corporations can threaten to campaign against elected officials that do not vote in the corporation’s favor. The conclusion of this argument is that the court’s decision has opened the door for corporations to use their money to manipulate elections and elected officials. The premises of the second argument are that in 1907 Congress banned corporations from contributing to candidates, and in the 1950’s Congress enacted a broader ban on corporate political spending that was repeatedly reaffirmed over the years. The conclusion of this argument is that the court’s decision radically reverses well-established law and erodes a wall that has stood for a century between corporations and elections. The premise of the third argument is that the founders of this nation warned about the dangers of corporate influence, and that founding fathers knew what was good for the country. The conclusion is that we should listen to the founder’s advice that corporate influence is dangerous. The fourth argument is that corporations are not people and should not be granted the same First Amendment rights as people because they are artificial legal constructs that exist to make money. The fifth argument is that independent expenditures by corporations do cause corruption or the appearance of corruption, for example if Wall Street had threatened to campaign against anyone who opposed their bailout, it would look corrupt. The last rationale and only explanation is that the court’s decision was politically motivated to give Republican candidates an advantage in future elections. | ||
| − | |||
====Student Two==== | ====Student Two==== | ||
Revision as of 08:11, 10 February 2010
Please post model work here:
1st practice reconstruction: "The Court's Blow to Democracy"
Student One
In “The Court’s Blow to Democracy” the author argues that the recent The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a bad decision and should be overturned. The author uses six rationales to defend this conclusion, five of which are arguments, and one is an explanation. The premises of the first argument are that corporations are no longer banned from spending directly on political campaigns, and corporations can threaten to campaign against elected officials that do not vote in the corporation’s favor. The conclusion of this argument is that the court’s decision has opened the door for corporations to use their money to manipulate elections and elected officials. The premises of the second argument are that in 1907 Congress banned corporations from contributing to candidates, and in the 1950’s Congress enacted a broader ban on corporate political spending that was repeatedly reaffirmed over the years. The conclusion of this argument is that the court’s decision radically reverses well-established law and erodes a wall that has stood for a century between corporations and elections. The premise of the third argument is that the founders of this nation warned about the dangers of corporate influence, and that founding fathers knew what was good for the country. The conclusion is that we should listen to the founder’s advice that corporate influence is dangerous. The fourth argument is that corporations are not people and should not be granted the same First Amendment rights as people because they are artificial legal constructs that exist to make money. The fifth argument is that independent expenditures by corporations do cause corruption or the appearance of corruption, for example if Wall Street had threatened to campaign against anyone who opposed their bailout, it would look corrupt. The last rationale and only explanation is that the court’s decision was politically motivated to give Republican candidates an advantage in future elections.
Student Two
There are 3 rationales in this article. For the first rationale, the author utilizes 2 premises to draw an intermediate conclusion that contributes to the general conclusion. The first premise is that corporations are artificial legal constructs. The second premise states that corporations are created by the state to make money. Because of these premises, the author makes the intermediate conclusion that corporations should not be legally considered “people”. The second rationale has 2 premises. The first premise is that this ruling will presumably ensure that Republican candidates will have an advantage in future elections. The second premise states that democracy is crucial for fair elections. The intermediate conclusion is that this ruling strikes at the heart of democracy. The third rationale includes 3 premises. The first premise is that the constitution does not mention corporations as institutions that are protected by the First Amendment. The second premise states that in 1907 it was decided that corporations should not contribute to candidates. The third premise states that midcentury this decision was reaffirmed and has been ever since. The intermediate conclusion here is that we should follow time-proven tradition of the constitution. Thus, the general conclusion of this argument is that this court ruling was a bad decision.
