A.)"The Clear Case for the Gas Tax"
1.) The author thinks that when the federal gas tax expires, it will be tremendously destructive to our country. He believes this because it would bankrupt the already stressed Highway Trust Fund, with devastating effects on the country’s highways, bridges, mass transit systems and the economy as a whole.
2.) Yes, because the author supported their claim by using reports and various facts. They gave many reasons why the tax should be kept in place or even be increased. Throughout the whole article, the author mentions many people’s opinions to support their claim. This allows him to draw the reader in and hopefully, they will agree with them to be on their side. They also use statistics about the economy and how much people would pay.
3.) I agree that the gas tax shouldn’t be expired. I think this because without it, the roads of America won’t be good enough to even drive on. If people aren’t willing to pay, then they shouldn’t complaining about how bad our roads are. If we don’t have the funds to fix our roads, the quality of them would be disastrous. The roads and bridges are at constant use in America and we need to keep them in good shape for the future.
4.) I think this part of the article clearly defines it as an editorial instead of an article, ““Unless Congress extends it, the 18.4 cents-a-gallon federal gas tax will expire on Sept. 30. Allowing that to happen would be tremendously destructive.”
5.) I honestly couldn’t find other articles that argued the opposite side of the issue. I did find a lot of other articles that showed more people who agreed with the issue this author stated.
1.) The author that wrote this article believes that the New York Times is claiming to be worried about the Court’s legitimacy, but is actually attacking the conservative justice, eventually revealing the magazine’s “highly partisan agenda”.
3.) I disagree with the author’s claim because everyone in the world is going to have an opinion. People were made to express what they think and feel. That is why we have such a diverse world. So many people’s opinions influence how the world turns out to be. You can’t stop people from saying what they feel, that is why we have freedom of speech.
4.) When I first started to read this editorial, I started to realize that the first couple of sentences were quite aggressive. “I’ve had ample occasion to expose the mendacity, inanity, and confusion that have pervaded recent New York Times house editorials on the Supreme Court and ethics, and I’ll confess that it’s rather tedious to do so yet again, but I gather that there are some people who still take NYT house editorials seriously, so here goes”.
5.) I honestly couldn’t find a site that argues the opposite side of the same issue. I think many people in America just don’t really pay attention to these problems.
C.) “A Race to Repudiate Government”
1.) I think the author’s claim is kind of hard to identify, but he is saying that Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul, Texas Gov. Rick Perry are the best candidates in the upcoming Presidential election, Paul and Bachmann being the top two. The author also says that Rep. Tim Pawlenty was not strong enough to continue in the race. So he isn’t there anymore.
3.) I honestly disagree with the author’s claim because he hasn’t given me enough information about each candidate. I feel as if even if they got the popular vote in the elections, it doesn’t mean they were the best for the job.
4.) “Why not let a handful of conservatives and libertarians winnow the field? It will toughen up the candidates for the extremist gauntlet to come.” This statement leads me to believe the article is in fact an editorial.
5.) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/opinion/bruni-heroes-until-theyve-arrived.html?scp=2&sq=editorials%20against%20bachmann&st=cse
D.) “An Industry in Need of Accountability"
1.) The author’s claim is that he thinks the industry is acting on bad conduct. He is glad that the government is taking a stand against the companies because others aren’t. The writer thinks that the industry needs some instruction.
2.) The author supports his claim by adding statistics and quotes in his editorial. He explains how many people have sued the company for fraud; furthermore, he goes on to show why and how the company can be sued.
3.) I agree with the author because that money was supposed to be used for education, not just for the company. If the company’s aren’t regulated, they’re going to keep taking money from the government. This will hurt the economy in the long run.
4.) “The suit against the Education Management Corporation, … the government is at last prepared to move decisively against the unscrupulous conduct that appears to be all too common in the industry.” This makes me feel like this article is an editorial.
E.) "S&P downgrade is about politics, not U.S. debt"
1.) The author claims the extremists aren't allowing the government to use funds for other needed causes, and that they should be ignored. The government should take control over economic policy.
2.) The writer does support their claim in the article. They explain how the extremists are in the way of the government by spending their money. The extremists don’t want to spend money on education nor energy.
3.)
4.)
No comments:
Post a Comment