Observation 2

Chapter 3 was very helpful in teaching me how to analyze arguments. In my past I have never learned how to fully analyze a argument. In the claim section I never realized how many parts it contained. I knew that you should always look for what your writer is speaking about, but it never dawned on me that you should look for their exceptions to their claim. After reading that section it made sense that you should look to see when they would do with they are arguing and when they would not do it.
When the book discussed analyzing reasons and evidence it was clear to me and made sense. One thing I liked and I know will help me is being able to note refutations. If I am able to state why I believe in a certain issue I will be able to back it up with evidence and other people may begin to believe what I write. It will also show that I know what I am talking about.

Observation 3

The first topic I am considering is the debate over sex education. Many people debate over whether or not sex ed should be taught by parents or the school system. In my paper I would argue that it should be taught by both parties, but should mostly be the responsibility of the parents. I would also show the benefits that teens receive from both sides. In the paper I would not only give my view points but accurate statistics to help back up my opinion.
My second topic I am considering is how healthy are diet drinks for people, especially women. Since my major is food science this would be a real good topic. I would investigate how diet drinks affects the body and what would be the recommended amount for the different sexes. I think this would be the best topic because this issue affects a wide variety of people because health is a big issue in our country.

Observation 1

In the column, "You Also Have the Right to Tell a Bigot What you think" by Lenoard Pitts it really applied to me. I liked his column because it was relatable to what I see in the media today. Two lines that I really liked is when he writes lines 23-24. I liked those two lines because when people use the first amendment to defined what other people say, he is saying that not only isn't their observation incorrect but it is also besides the point. I feel like he states that people should be held accountable for what they state if it effects people. I also like how he states something that I believe many people would agree with him about.
If I was to ask him a question I would ask him what he means in the last paragraph. I understand that he is stating that he knows people have the right to say what they want to say but I do not understand what he means when he writes, "But you know what? We all do." Is he contradicting himself by saying that we have the right to say whatever we want to say without being criticized. Or is he saying that we should watch what we say so we don't have to be criticized.