Carcaldi, “For Sound Argument, Drop the Jokes”
The goal of that assignment is for you to read an essay, break it down and analyze how it is put together, and evaluate how well it is argued. As is stated in that prompt, it is absolutely not to tell the reader whether you agree with the argument or not. Ideally, after reading Carcaldi’s essay, you should not know if she agrees that deer hunting is a good idea or not. Because she feels that Kristof’s essay is ineffective, you may be tempted to think she disagrees with him, but that isn’t necessarily true.
A quick example: I was on a jury once on a court case in which a man was accused of interfering with an officer in the course of his duty. It was a case involving a car being repossessed, the owner being upset, the sheriff being called, and an argument that ensued. During the argument between the accused and the officer, they bumped chests, and the accused was arrested. (It was complicated.) When we went to deliberate, several people on the jury said they had been taught to always obey the police, so since the accused had argued with him, he was in the wrong and was guilty. There were others who said the police were corrupt and always in the wrong, so the accused was innocent. In the end I thought the actual evidence suggested the accused was guilty, but I really wanted to tell the judge that the others voting “guilty” were doing it for the wrong reasons. Ideally, how I felt about the police (one way or the other) should not have been in consideration in that particular circumstance. We were asked only to examine the evidence within the law as presented, not let our feelings about the issue be known.
Given that, Carcaldi seems to be following those directions. I will caution you that just because this appears in a textbook does not mean it’s a perfect essay. It has it’s strengths and makes useful observations, but there are also some things I don’t encourage. I’m not sure what her point about future terrorist attacks is (this comes very close to arguing about the issue rather than analyzing); I’m not sure the contradictions she claims are in the essay are true contradictions; and there isn’t much use in saying that he uses “transitions of argumentation” when that doesn’t have an effect on the reading. (You also do not need to note the paragraphs when you are citing examples from the essay.)
The Question: Do you agree with Carcaldi’s evaluation? Why or why not?
Search entries or author
Text: Current Issues and Enduring Questions, 12th ed., edited by Sylvan Barnet (ISBN 1319198183)
Carcaldi, “For Sound Argument, Drop the Jokes” (188-191)
