Essay #1 Position Paper
The purpose of this essay was to analyze Bacon's essay and explore critical thinking by incorporating ideas of previous readings to support a claim .
Ladder to Critical Thinking
One of society's greatest setbacks is the limitation of being open to new ideas and our inability to be open-minded to beliefs that are not the same as ours. This inability to have an open mind causes people to essentially block off their own minds from thinking critically about new material that is being presented. By doing so, we stagger our own knowledge and choose to only believe on what we perceive to be the truth. However, in some cases what we believe to be the truth can be false. Without the input of others, media, books and any form of information we do not have a different perspective other than our own. Critical Thinking helps challenge belief and aids to determine if an idea should be accepted as the truth. Religion aids in eroding critical thinking skills by convincing their believers to think in only one way and to dismiss any other belief that does not match theirs.
What is Critical Thinking? How does it benefit us in our daily lives? Critical thinking is a way of thinking that is clear, reasonable, and open- minded that is supported by factual evidence. Critical thinking helps us to focus on what to believe and not to believe. The values of that critical thinking provides people with is the ability to think with an open mind within alternative systems of thought, raise important questions and problems concerning a topic, and possess the ability to communicate effectively with others to figure out solutions to complex problems. According to Carl Segan “having the capability to find a balance between being skeptical to a certain extent and being open to new ideas is of much importance”. Being the extreme skeptic is has its own negative effects in our lives such as that people deliberately evade any new idea that is presented to them because they are so rooted to their own beliefs. When one holds everything to exceptional scrutiny we do not allow ourselves to be open to new ideas. Perhaps some of the information we have concerning a belief, or idea is not necessarily true. This new piece of information can shed some light on something we were not so sure about ourselves. On the other hand being extremely open to everything that is proposed to us without any thought is just as harmful. It has been proven that people learn through experience and asking questions. On occasions my father, who as a child was raised Catholic, would sometimes attend church services with my mom and me. Although he did not agree with certain teachings of Adventism he was not closed-minded to them. He would not completely shut ideas out just because they did not pertain to what he believed. On the contrary, my family was completely against even attending a different church that was not Adventist. My father learned to accept my mother’s religion and not oppose it. If people do not ask questions and just absorb anything that is given to them, how are they sure that what is being fed to them is correct? Therefore there should be a balance between the two modes. In this way there is optimal understanding and knowledge increases.
Growing up I was raised in a very religious family whose views concerning the way people should conduct ourselves and the rules that we must abide by were strict. There was only one right way and one wrong way, there was no in between. When I would attend church with my family the preacher would lecture about how the seventh day Adventist faith was the only “correct” faith that led to heaven. All other religions were immediately incorrect for the simple reason that they were not Adventist and did not preach the “truth”. The lectures would always be about how we as Adventists should strictly attend church on Saturdays as the appointed day of worship, consequently the religions that did not practice this were wrong. As a child I did not care to question and critically think about what the preacher was imposing. I just believed it to be true because that is what I had been taught all throughout my childhood. However as I grew older and had more curiosity about what I was learning I would ask myself “ Why does it have to be specifically Saturday?” If you are doing something good does it matters on what day it is that you do it? Other religions practiced going to worship on Sundays, and they seemed to be fine. I brought my questions to my skeptical family members and they would just tell me what I had heard for so many years, “Because that’s what the Bible says” was the invariable answer. The narrow minded vision of the church I belonged to and the people that influenced my life growing up did not allow me to explore and do my own research to prove that what was being taught to me was indeed the truth.
Although religion does benefit society by providing a sense of belonging and a purpose to live, if taken too far it may cause people to be only focused on their own views and block off everything else. For many people, religion brings meaning and structure to ones lives by imposing a set of values and morals and values to live by. It is up to the individual to decide whether or not they deem religion to be beneficial in their life. I would attend camping trips with the church occasionally that made me feel as I was part of the community. The purpose of these trips was to have a connection with God and admire our surroundings that God had created. It was a peaceful atmosphere and I felt comfortable with the people around me. However when religion is taken to the extreme it can take control of one’s life by imposing regulations and certain rules you must follow. If an individual allows their belief to take control they look at the world through tunnel vision. Their mind becomes unreceptive to new ideas or arguments. There was no longer any freedom in their lives. Religion was confining all aspects of their lives and making them think in only one way.
People create barriers or illusions that prevent them from thinking critically. According to Francis Bacon, a philosopher these barriers are called idols that people possess. The four are: idols of the cave, marketplace, theater, and idols of the tribe. Each of these barriers creates certain illusions in our minds preventing us from thinking critically. The idols of the cave describe issues that vary from individual to individual. These illusions come forth from our distinct cultures; they depict our beliefs that are reflected from our education, environment, and our experiences. People tend to be incapable of seeing both sides of an idea because of their personal biases. The idols of the Cave are those that originate in our own complex minds and are influenced by our own experiences. The mind becomes like a deep cave where the thoughts are free to roam but does not allow the individual to reflect on our thoughts. This lack of reflection leads people to become attached to a certain belief or speculation and not consider otherwise. There does not always have to be concretely one answer as to why certain things occur. There can be multiple factors. For example at church I was taught the idea of creation. There was only one way that everything we know today came to an existence. No evolution, no big bang theory, no science, just God. During my early years of learning I attended an Adventist school, which teaching methods reflected the teaching of the Adventist church. As expected, everything that I was taught had only one side to it. When I moved schools and began attending a normal public school things changed. I was introduced to a different perspective of ideas. Now it was not just based on religion, ideas had backup from science. I now had two different viewpoints from which I could build my own views. These two different viewpoints led me to have a conflict in my own mind. I felt confused, and from this confusion I started climbing up the critical thinking ladder.
The idols of the theater hinder further understanding based on a system of philosophy, science and theology. It describes how people lean towards certain dogmas and not ask questions about the world. These idols explain that organizations develop structures of rules and regulations and derive mainly from grand schemes. Bacon states that all the “idols” together form our own unique view and become the lens that we use to interpret everything in our world. In religion critical thinking is seen as rebellious and discouraged all together. It is believed that there is no need for questioning and critical thinking because there is higher power. In cases such as those of Galileo, when he went against the beliefs of the Catholic Church, he was punished for doing so. Why? We may ask. What harm is being done by having our own opinion pertaining a certain matter. Religion encourages the exclusion of critical thinking because it causes us to question, and this questioning may bring forth a different perspective, which may threaten prior belief.
Although I do agree that religion is an important factor in ones life due to its beneficial aspects I also agree that it narrows our mind to a certain way of thinking and does not allow us to critically think. Being able to critically think is an essential if one desires to further their knowledge and create their own opinion pertaining a certain subject without being penalized for doing so. In the world of religion you are made to believe in one thing, and one thing only, there is no room for questioning. Religion should not be this way; instead of imposing rules and regulations for their believers to follow, individuals should be given the freedom to practice their faith to the extent that they are willing to and create their own opinions. Having the freedom to critically think benefits society as a whole because it allows for new ideas to be created therefore allowing innovation to advance and broaden knowledge in society.
Essay #4 : Research Argument Essay
The Deadly Truth
Capital Punishment is a topic highly debated around the world. Some are entirely against it, while others wholly support it. As everyone can agree life is a gift, it is an innate right among every individual disregarding class, gender, and racial background; every human being has the right to live. Those who take this given right from someone should be punished for their actions, but is justice served by the death of the accused? Often times the government gives the death penalty as a form of justice. However, this punishment does not undo what has been done against us. The death penalty is simply murder that is justified by the government. Because the government does not have the power to create or give life, it is not correct for it to use its authority to take life either.
Society believes that the methods we now use to perform an execution are much more civilized and humane compared to the methods used years ago. The death penalty dates back to the Eighteenth Century B.C in Ancient Babylon in the Code of Hammurabi. Thirty-five offenses were codified to receive the death penalty. In the Sixteenth Century, countries like Britain fully enforced the death penalty upon its citizens for serious crimes such as treason and the marriage among Jews. The most common way of execution was by hanging the individual, burning, boiling and beheading, methods that are far more barbaric than the methods we now use. In modern day society we utilize capital punishment against those who commit first-degree murder, rape, treason, and terrorism. (“Part 1: History of the Death Penalty”) The government uses its power and intelligence to find those who are accused of these crimes and promises society to fulfill its justice. But despite the government’s high intelligence, there is always the risk of wrongful conviction against innocent human beings for crimes they did not commit. Due to our nature, human beings are prone to make mistakes. The high risk that is involved when sentencing an individual to death is not worth it due to the proneness to error. The life of an individual should not be put at the mercy of the government system and serve as a teeter-totter waiting to lose his or her balance and collapse. The government should not give the verdict on whether an individual should live or be condemned to die at the hand of the state based on evidence that is deemed to be one hundred percent true and holds no flaw. As a society we place our trust in the government to utilize its recourses and power to find the guilty. However, they too make mistakes and sometimes wrongfully convict innocent citizens.
Innocence has become a powerful argument regarding the topic of the death penalty. With new science and technology arising, one would assume that fewer mistakes would be made regarding the convictions of individuals but unfortunately that is not always the case. The introduction of DNA testing claims to offer absolute assurance of finding an individual to be innocent or guilty. However the process of DNA testing demands accurateness throughout the entire procedure where the slightest level of mistake has the potential to lead to false results The process required to do DNA testing involves rigorous and precise methods. After the extraction and replication of the genome high tech computers analyze the results. Technical problems that may occur during the analyzing process can lead to false interpretations. Although new technological advancements increase the probability of bringing people such as murderers and rapists to justice there are flaws in the system that cannot be overlooked as a small matter. The government should deter away from capital punishment because it does not assure one hundred percent a valid conviction of any individual.
Nearly a decade ago a man by the name of Todd Willingham was executed by the state of Texas for what the state believed was arson. Willingham was accused of purposefully setting his house on fire consequently killing his daughters who were inside the home. Willingham’s conviction relied on an alleged confession of the crime to a jailhouse informant and an analysis of the fire by arson experts. Willingham was found guilty of arson and was executed following his conviction. In the years following Willingham’s execution and conviction the key evidence that was used against him brought forth questions regarding the analysis and science that were used in the investigation. It was later concluded that Willingham had not intentionally set fire to his own home; the incident was just a tragic house fire accident that killed his family. The alleged confession to the jailhouse informant was also found to be false. The jailhouse informant had been paid to testify against Willingham by the judge himself. (Truthout) A tragic case such as this where a man in thrown into jail after the death of his family and accused of implementing the fire himself is true validation that the death penalty is not effective in what it claims to do which is stop people from killing others. We live in a society where people are willing to lie in return for money, disregarding the harm they are doing to the victim. No matter how thorough courts are, despite the technical advances that have been introduced in our society, there are still chances where the individual that has been charged is later found to have been innocent of the charge. The risks that are involved with the sentence of capital punishment are not worth it because it is lives that are on the line with this type of punishment.
The strategies that the government has used to fulfill an execution have evolved through out the years. With new technological advancements we have found less barbaric and inhumane ways to execute an individual and impose justice. Before the introduction and the uprising popularity of lethal injection in the late twentieth century, other methods were used in an execution such as firing squad, electric chair, gas chamber, beheading and hanging. In the United States, lethal injection is most commonly used in execution procedures because the government asserts that it is to be serene, soothing and most suitable way to die. However this is not the actual truth. The lethal injection process consists of a three-injection procedure administered to the inmate while being strapped down on a gurney. The first injection is Sodium thiopental, which serves as a sleeping agent. The second injection, Pancuronium bromine, serves as a paralytic agent that paralyses the body of the individual making it impossible for him or her to move despite any pain that they may feel. Lastly the inmate is injected with potassium chloride, which is a lethal toxic that induces cardiac arrest and procures death. This procedure contradicts the United States Supreme Court interpretation of Cruel and Unusual Punishment due to many executions being severely botched. The government does not regulate the protocols and procedures disregarding the individuality of each inmate regarding age, body weight, drug tolerance and other factors. These varying factors may impact the way the inmate’s body reacts to the cocktail of chemicals. Many inmates are given insufficient amounts of the initial drug in order to efficiently be put to sleep without regaining consciousness throughout the remaining injections required by the procedure. In cases where the procedure has been botched, the inmate suffers significant pain during the second chemical injection, which prevents any mobile movements and verbal communication. Meanwhile, proceeding with the execution a third injection will be administered where the individual will feel a burning pain throughout the body until the heart comes to a stop. It is of no surprise that the American Health Association denounced the use of pancuronium bromide as an anesthesia of animals because of the paralyzing effects that can mask pain yet the government allows for this chemical to be used to kill humans. This goes to show that if it’s inhumane to a drug such as pancuronium bromide on animals it should be also considered inhumane when it is to be used on humans.
When we think about doctors we think of them as noble members of our society who are there to restore and preserve life. The core of medical ethics demands physicians to provide proficient medical service while exhibiting compassion for human life and dignity. The World Medical Association claims that the participation of physicians during executions violates these core duties that they are bound to. When physicians participate in any way during an execution, they are violating moral and ethical codes that go against what they are supposed to abide by which is the Hippocratic oath of “do no harm.” This issue becomes controversial because the three-drug protocol that is administered to the inmates in the execution process must be precisely measured and administered for the drug to function properly therefore requiring the participation of a trained individual in the medical field. However, when a trained individual participates in executions they go against their ethical code that requires them to help and to ease the pain of patients, but in the execution room lives are taken. Due to the mistakes that occur during the first lethal injection administered during the execution process, more and more inmates are strong advocates for physicians participating during the execution to reduce the risk of unnecessary suffering. This brings up another controversial debate, if the inmate wants the medical professional to participate in the lethal injection procedure to alleviate and assure that the process will not be botched is it considered ethical for the medical professional to grant this request? Although a physician’s presence during and execution might bring some mental and physical comfort, the motivations of the physician do not justify involvement because their participation indefinitely produces death. The American health Association argues that decease is the primary cause of death for patients, whereas lethal injection is the primary cause of the inmate’s death. The involvement of the trained physician during this process of lethal injection is the primary cause of death. By using their knowledge and medical abilities for a state mandated purpose the physician does not act as a physician much rather a tool used by the state to cause death. Because physicians are trained to use their skills and knowledge and abide by the Hippocratic oath to benefit our society they should not be forced to carry out state authorized execute that tarnish the values that are upheld by this moral ethical code. Not only do they take away the life of a human being but by doing so cause pain and suffering to the family of that individual.
Although the act of killing another human being is wrong the state should not underly the crime itself as a form of punishment for the undesired act. The processes that must be followed to find the guilty individual prone to human mistakes can condemn a innocent individual to lose his or her life because at the hands of the state. Once that life has been taken there is no way or replacing it no matter the amount of money that is recompensed to the family of the individual. The lives of no individual should be put at the mercy of the government because it was not them who gave it not only is it risky but also immoral. Capital punishment is barbaric due to the mishaps that occur during the execution process and go against the 18th amendment that bans cruel and unusual punishment against an individual. With the participation of medical personnel during the execution process the risk of a medical mishap causing the inmate excruciating pain and suffering decreases. However, the participation of medical professionals during an execution violates the moral ethic in the medical field. Even the slightest participation such as confirming that the individual is dead violates the moral code because the medical professional is assisting the executioner. The death penalty is just a form of revenge against the accused because the victim’s life is not brought back, not a form of justice.
Capital Punishment is a topic highly debated around the world. Some are entirely against it, while others wholly support it. As everyone can agree life is a gift, it is an innate right among every individual disregarding class, gender, and racial background; every human being has the right to live. Those who take this given right from someone should be punished for their actions, but is justice served by the death of the accused? Often times the government gives the death penalty as a form of justice. However, this punishment does not undo what has been done against us. The death penalty is simply murder that is justified by the government. Because the government does not have the power to create or give life, it is not correct for it to use its authority to take life either.
Society believes that the methods we now use to perform an execution are much more civilized and humane compared to the methods used years ago. The death penalty dates back to the Eighteenth Century B.C in Ancient Babylon in the Code of Hammurabi. Thirty-five offenses were codified to receive the death penalty. In the Sixteenth Century, countries like Britain fully enforced the death penalty upon its citizens for serious crimes such as treason and the marriage among Jews. The most common way of execution was by hanging the individual, burning, boiling and beheading, methods that are far more barbaric than the methods we now use. In modern day society we utilize capital punishment against those who commit first-degree murder, rape, treason, and terrorism. (“Part 1: History of the Death Penalty”) The government uses its power and intelligence to find those who are accused of these crimes and promises society to fulfill its justice. But despite the government’s high intelligence, there is always the risk of wrongful conviction against innocent human beings for crimes they did not commit. Due to our nature, human beings are prone to make mistakes. The high risk that is involved when sentencing an individual to death is not worth it due to the proneness to error. The life of an individual should not be put at the mercy of the government system and serve as a teeter-totter waiting to lose his or her balance and collapse. The government should not give the verdict on whether an individual should live or be condemned to die at the hand of the state based on evidence that is deemed to be one hundred percent true and holds no flaw. As a society we place our trust in the government to utilize its recourses and power to find the guilty. However, they too make mistakes and sometimes wrongfully convict innocent citizens.
Innocence has become a powerful argument regarding the topic of the death penalty. With new science and technology arising, one would assume that fewer mistakes would be made regarding the convictions of individuals but unfortunately that is not always the case. The introduction of DNA testing claims to offer absolute assurance of finding an individual to be innocent or guilty. However the process of DNA testing demands accurateness throughout the entire procedure where the slightest level of mistake has the potential to lead to false results The process required to do DNA testing involves rigorous and precise methods. After the extraction and replication of the genome high tech computers analyze the results. Technical problems that may occur during the analyzing process can lead to false interpretations. Although new technological advancements increase the probability of bringing people such as murderers and rapists to justice there are flaws in the system that cannot be overlooked as a small matter. The government should deter away from capital punishment because it does not assure one hundred percent a valid conviction of any individual.
Nearly a decade ago a man by the name of Todd Willingham was executed by the state of Texas for what the state believed was arson. Willingham was accused of purposefully setting his house on fire consequently killing his daughters who were inside the home. Willingham’s conviction relied on an alleged confession of the crime to a jailhouse informant and an analysis of the fire by arson experts. Willingham was found guilty of arson and was executed following his conviction. In the years following Willingham’s execution and conviction the key evidence that was used against him brought forth questions regarding the analysis and science that were used in the investigation. It was later concluded that Willingham had not intentionally set fire to his own home; the incident was just a tragic house fire accident that killed his family. The alleged confession to the jailhouse informant was also found to be false. The jailhouse informant had been paid to testify against Willingham by the judge himself. (Truthout) A tragic case such as this where a man in thrown into jail after the death of his family and accused of implementing the fire himself is true validation that the death penalty is not effective in what it claims to do which is stop people from killing others. We live in a society where people are willing to lie in return for money, disregarding the harm they are doing to the victim. No matter how thorough courts are, despite the technical advances that have been introduced in our society, there are still chances where the individual that has been charged is later found to have been innocent of the charge. The risks that are involved with the sentence of capital punishment are not worth it because it is lives that are on the line with this type of punishment.
The strategies that the government has used to fulfill an execution have evolved through out the years. With new technological advancements we have found less barbaric and inhumane ways to execute an individual and impose justice. Before the introduction and the uprising popularity of lethal injection in the late twentieth century, other methods were used in an execution such as firing squad, electric chair, gas chamber, beheading and hanging. In the United States, lethal injection is most commonly used in execution procedures because the government asserts that it is to be serene, soothing and most suitable way to die. However this is not the actual truth. The lethal injection process consists of a three-injection procedure administered to the inmate while being strapped down on a gurney. The first injection is Sodium thiopental, which serves as a sleeping agent. The second injection, Pancuronium bromine, serves as a paralytic agent that paralyses the body of the individual making it impossible for him or her to move despite any pain that they may feel. Lastly the inmate is injected with potassium chloride, which is a lethal toxic that induces cardiac arrest and procures death. This procedure contradicts the United States Supreme Court interpretation of Cruel and Unusual Punishment due to many executions being severely botched. The government does not regulate the protocols and procedures disregarding the individuality of each inmate regarding age, body weight, drug tolerance and other factors. These varying factors may impact the way the inmate’s body reacts to the cocktail of chemicals. Many inmates are given insufficient amounts of the initial drug in order to efficiently be put to sleep without regaining consciousness throughout the remaining injections required by the procedure. In cases where the procedure has been botched, the inmate suffers significant pain during the second chemical injection, which prevents any mobile movements and verbal communication. Meanwhile, proceeding with the execution a third injection will be administered where the individual will feel a burning pain throughout the body until the heart comes to a stop. It is of no surprise that the American Health Association denounced the use of pancuronium bromide as an anesthesia of animals because of the paralyzing effects that can mask pain yet the government allows for this chemical to be used to kill humans. This goes to show that if it’s inhumane to a drug such as pancuronium bromide on animals it should be also considered inhumane when it is to be used on humans.
When we think about doctors we think of them as noble members of our society who are there to restore and preserve life. The core of medical ethics demands physicians to provide proficient medical service while exhibiting compassion for human life and dignity. The World Medical Association claims that the participation of physicians during executions violates these core duties that they are bound to. When physicians participate in any way during an execution, they are violating moral and ethical codes that go against what they are supposed to abide by which is the Hippocratic oath of “do no harm.” This issue becomes controversial because the three-drug protocol that is administered to the inmates in the execution process must be precisely measured and administered for the drug to function properly therefore requiring the participation of a trained individual in the medical field. However, when a trained individual participates in executions they go against their ethical code that requires them to help and to ease the pain of patients, but in the execution room lives are taken. Due to the mistakes that occur during the first lethal injection administered during the execution process, more and more inmates are strong advocates for physicians participating during the execution to reduce the risk of unnecessary suffering. This brings up another controversial debate, if the inmate wants the medical professional to participate in the lethal injection procedure to alleviate and assure that the process will not be botched is it considered ethical for the medical professional to grant this request? Although a physician’s presence during and execution might bring some mental and physical comfort, the motivations of the physician do not justify involvement because their participation indefinitely produces death. The American health Association argues that decease is the primary cause of death for patients, whereas lethal injection is the primary cause of the inmate’s death. The involvement of the trained physician during this process of lethal injection is the primary cause of death. By using their knowledge and medical abilities for a state mandated purpose the physician does not act as a physician much rather a tool used by the state to cause death. Because physicians are trained to use their skills and knowledge and abide by the Hippocratic oath to benefit our society they should not be forced to carry out state authorized execute that tarnish the values that are upheld by this moral ethical code. Not only do they take away the life of a human being but by doing so cause pain and suffering to the family of that individual.
Although the act of killing another human being is wrong the state should not underly the crime itself as a form of punishment for the undesired act. The processes that must be followed to find the guilty individual prone to human mistakes can condemn a innocent individual to lose his or her life because at the hands of the state. Once that life has been taken there is no way or replacing it no matter the amount of money that is recompensed to the family of the individual. The lives of no individual should be put at the mercy of the government because it was not them who gave it not only is it risky but also immoral. Capital punishment is barbaric due to the mishaps that occur during the execution process and go against the 18th amendment that bans cruel and unusual punishment against an individual. With the participation of medical personnel during the execution process the risk of a medical mishap causing the inmate excruciating pain and suffering decreases. However, the participation of medical professionals during an execution violates the moral ethic in the medical field. Even the slightest participation such as confirming that the individual is dead violates the moral code because the medical professional is assisting the executioner. The death penalty is just a form of revenge against the accused because the victim’s life is not brought back, not a form of justice.
Work Cited
Aronson, Jay D., Simon A. Cole. "Science And The Death Penalty: DNA, Innocence, And The Debate Over Capital Punishment In The United States." Law & Social Inquiry 34.3 (2009): 603-633. Academic Search Premier. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Deborah W. Denno. “ Death by Lethal Injection Is Inhumane.” Capital Punishment.Paul G. Connors. Detroit. Nasso, 2007. 50-58. Print
Death Penalty Information Center. Death Penalty Information Center. DPIC. 2015. Web. 02 Dec.2009
Keane, Michael. "The Ethical “Elephant” In The Death Penalty “Room”." American Journal Of Bioethics 8.10 (2008): 45-50. Academic Search Premier. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Truthout. Truthout, 11. 20015. Web. 01 Dec. 2015.
Aronson, Jay D., Simon A. Cole. "Science And The Death Penalty: DNA, Innocence, And The Debate Over Capital Punishment In The United States." Law & Social Inquiry 34.3 (2009): 603-633. Academic Search Premier. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Deborah W. Denno. “ Death by Lethal Injection Is Inhumane.” Capital Punishment.Paul G. Connors. Detroit. Nasso, 2007. 50-58. Print
Death Penalty Information Center. Death Penalty Information Center. DPIC. 2015. Web. 02 Dec.2009
Keane, Michael. "The Ethical “Elephant” In The Death Penalty “Room”." American Journal Of Bioethics 8.10 (2008): 45-50. Academic Search Premier. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Truthout. Truthout, 11. 20015. Web. 01 Dec. 2015.
The purpose of this assignment was to bring together the skills we learned during this semester such as citing sources, analyzing and evaluating texts to compose a research argument essay.