PASSAGE andANALYSIS assignment.

THIS IS A DETAILED ASSIGNMENT. PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRICTIONS AND DO AS REQUIRED. LOOK AT THE SAMPLE TO SEE WHAT IS EXPECTED!

WHAT IS THE PASSAGE ABOUT?
PREPARATION: EXTRACTING ARGUMENT AND CONCEPTUAL QUESTIONS

Step 1: After two or three close readings, isolate the main conclusion of the passage.

Step 2: Identify the main concepts around which the passage turns. [8 Concepts.]

• State the two main concepts around which the passage turns
• Explain what the author means by the two main concepts, that is, provide a detailed understanding of how the author defines the concepts. [Chart with 12-15 concepts]

Step 3: Formulate one main conceptual question with which the passage is concerned. [ Steps 1-3= 5 marks]

• Questions must be conceptual!

Step 5: List and explain 3 claims (1 Empirical, 1 normative and 1 conceptual,) from within the passage. Identify and evaluate 2 fallacies.  List and explain one Propositional claim and convert into its symbolic notation. List and explain one Categorical claim and identify each of its component. [15marks]- Look at attached files for notes- Fallacy and evidence

Step 6: Keeping your own analysis in mind, examine the author’s use of these same concepts by answering the following four questions: [Follow sample for reference] {show evidence and analysis}

• Are they clearly defined? [4 concepts.]
• Are they used in a sense that it too narrow or too wide? [2 concepts.]
• Are they used consistently, or do they shift in meaning throughout the passage? [2 concepts.]
• Can their weaknesses be strengthened (i.e., positively criticized)? [2 concepts.]

STEP 7: Map 1 paragraph into 4 premises, 1 hidden premise and the minor conclusion. Evaluate the truth function of each premise and indicate 1 conceptually problematic premise and provide explanation. Explain the type of Argument (Inductive or Deductive.) 7:4 positively comment on 1 good argument from within the Passage. [15 marks]

Passage: Blood on your Hands,  too by, Charles M Blow.

There is no question that we should examine incidents of police violence for traces of bias, if for no other reason than to rule it out if it isn’t present. Indeed, we should all search ourselves for manifestations of racial bias.

But the current conversation is — and must be — larger than that.

Interpersonal racism, when it exists, is only one part of the equation. Another part is systemic, structurally racist policies, and yet another is class conflict between the police and the poorest, most dangerous communities they patrol, and between those who are better off and those who are not. That strand is nearly absent from this conversation altogether.

At the Tuesday memorial service in Dallas for five murdered police officers, President Obama said:

“As a society, we choose to underinvest in decent schools. We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment. We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs. We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book. And then we tell the police, ‘You’re a social worker; you’re the parent; you’re the teacher; you’re the drug counselor.’ We tell them to keep those neighborhoods in check at all costs and do so without causing any political blowback or inconvenience; don’t make a mistake that might disturb our own peace of mind. And then we feign surprise when periodically the tensions boil over.”

The comment underscores that this is not simply a conflict between police departments and minority communities that everyone else can watch from a comfortable distance, convinced that the battle doesn’t belong to them.

No, this issue is about everyone. We have areas of concentrated poverty in our cities in part because of a long legacy of discriminatory urban policies. We don’t sufficiently address the effects of that legacy, in part because it is rooted in a myth of racial pathology and endemic poor choice. We choose to be blind to the policy choices our politicians have made — and that many have benefited from, while others suffered — while simultaneously holding firmly to the belief that all of our own successes and comforts are simply the result of our and our families’ drive, ambition and resourcefulness. Other people lack physical comforts because they lack our character strength.

It is from this bed of lies that our policing policies spring. When the president says, “We tell them to keep those neighborhoods in check at all costs,” who is the “we”?

It’s not the blue-collar civil servants in law enforcement or the working-class and poor communities, which are aggressively patrolled. No. The “we” is the middle and moneyed classes.

While the blue, black and brown groups on the lower end of the spectrum are forced into more interaction — on one hand to contain disruption within communities, and on the other to finance police departments and civic governance — everyone else goes about their business unaware and unbothered until something causes “political blowback or inconvenience” and disturbs the more prosperous half’s “peace of mind.”

As the Dallas police chief, David Brown, said Sunday:

“These officers risk their lives for $40,000 a year. Forty thousand dollars a year. And this is not sustainable, not to support these people. We’re not perfect. There’s cops that don’t need to be cops. I have been the first to say, we need to separate employment with those types of cops — 1 percent or 2 percent. The 98 percent or 99 percent of cops come to work, do this job, come to work for 40 grand. It’s not sustainable.”

Russel Honoré, a retired Army lieutenant general, on Monday told the CNN anchor Don Lemon: “We ask a lot from our police in terms of sacrifice. You know, in Baton Rouge, the starting salary for a police officer, less than $31,000.” Alton Sterling was killed last week by the police in that city.

Honoré continued:

“Matter of fact, their pay would go up if the federal minimum wage was passed, $15 an hour. They make less than $15 an hour. We ask a lot from these young police officers which means, Don, they’ve got to get another job. They have to have a second job to support their families, most of them. We’ve got to take that stress off of them, too. So we got to make sure they’re properly trained and they don’t have to work all this overtime so they can maintain their family. A stressful police officer who’s working another 30 hours overtime a week is coming to work tired. And he’s stressed out. We’ve got to fix that.”

We take this underpaid and highly stressed group of officers, with guns and any biases they may harbor, explicit or implicit, and flood disadvantaged communities with them, where uncivil behavior can often take root, and then “we feign surprise when periodically the tensions boil over.”

These are communities where people are often already scratching to survive, where some are engaged in makeshift work in the shadow economy: Eric Garner, who was killed by the police on Staten Island, had sold loose cigarettes for years, and Sterling had sold CDs in the parking lot of a convenience store for years.