EN1420
Module 2 analysis
The article was about a mom having to answer a question from her daughter concerning why a classmate had two moms instead of a mom and a dad and a book that could’ve helped the mom explain it a bit better. While the mother/author was able to both answer and evade the question, and the child accepted the answer, the mother notes that the book mentioned would’ve helped her greatly.
1. A. The claim or thesis for this article is that parents need to be more ready to answer questions posed by their children concerning same-sex couples.
B. I agree with this claim entirely, as while some family are the ‘traditional’ family unit (mother/father/child) there are families that have multiple parents of the same gender and children are going to ask about it.
2. A. The warrant or assumption this piece made was that all parents are going to be as accepting of their children knowing another child with same-sex couples.
B. The backing for this warrant or assumption is that the author states “you can choose to acknowledge differences and to show respect for love and kindness as Tango does or you can choose to act like a bird of a different feather. It’s called an ostrich.”
C. Yes and no. The warrant mentions God, which implies Christianity, which has been one of the loudest groups against same-sex couples.
3. A. The supports for evidence for the claim are as follows.
i. the entire article, for starters, it’s about the author’s daughter asking about same sex couples and the non-answer that the author gives. ii. She mentions in the first paragraph how the book And Tango MakesTthree could’ve been helpful in her household a year ago. iii. In the third to last paragraph (or second to last, if you count the last line as a paragraph or not) the author writes ‘and straight parents would be well-served to read the book and figure out how they’ll respond when the issue is raised in their home.”
4. Some of the qualifier words in the article were probably, might be, would have, if, would be, maybe.
5. There were no rebuttals that I could find.
6. The piece overall was not persuasive or effective overall. It felt more like a ‘my way or the highway’ type stance on it, with the last comment about being an ostrich, implying a ‘head in the sand’ type attitude. The only thing it could do is make me read the book, which may have been a side point.
The model helped me understand somewhat what each part was needed, though beyond that it didn’t do me much good. This may be because I’m not a big fan of models on how to think. I can see how it would be useful when in a debate-type situation, but I am personally not a fan of it, unless I am, again, in a true debate type forum, which is a bit on the rare side. I tend to avoid debates when I can.