Mario Barrios
July 14, 2011
Cre101su12011
Mid-Term
Title: “Extension of individual rights to minors”
Author: Unknown
Source: Unknown
Premise 1: Cogent, because most normal parents do have accumulated wisdom.
Premise 2: Not cogent, because that would be over generalizing all teen girls.
Premise 3: Not cogent, because not every relationship will end that way this is mind reading.
Premise 4: Not cogent, because that would be wishful thinking how they will act.
Premise 5: Cogent, because parent do & should know the well being of their child.
Premise 6: Not cogent, because these facts are pertaining to woman.
Premise 7: Cogent, because a parent by law must know & protect their child.
Premise 8: Not cogent, because it is not a fact & would be polarise thinking.
Strengths: There are only three strong premises.
Weakness: There are five weak premises.
This article holds more weak premises and in this case it is not cogent.
Mario Barrios
July 14, 2011
Cre101su12011
Mid-Term
The main issue in this article is should minors have an extension of their rights. This
means that any girl under eighteen years of age can and are having an abortion without her
parents consent. The author agues that there many rival cause which follow with less
parental control. This article used many distroted thinking styles throughout the passage.
The author comes off very strong and bias right off of the bat. The article used distorted
thinking for instance over generalizes and filtering when it came to many aspects of
teenagers in today’s society, using global labeling in this paragraph.
Paragraph eleven is a great example of how the author used mind reading how Planned
Parenthood will support such statutes. The author has show no evidence and the supporting
reasoning is not cogent.
The author also used weak facts in paragraph six. It was a clear case of the use of wishful
thinking. Knowing what or how your daughter will act or should do. The ambiguous term in
here was the price to pay.
In my opinion, I found this essay to be bias and not cogent with its details. I think that
children under the age of eighteen should have a parents consent at all times. In my mind
they lack the wisdom of most adults. Even though this article was bias I still strongly agree
with the authors views.
Mario Barrios
July 14, 2011
Cre101su12011
Mid-Term
1. The main issue is should minors have an extension of their rights. The conclusion is
that the government has failed to address the public’s wishes.
2. The first reason is that there are many psychological side effects & bodily harm which
come with an abortion which a parent will have no clue of. The lines of
communication have and could stop through parent and child.
3. There are three ambiguous term: Address the public, ill prepared, a small price to pay
and disastrous scene.
4. The first, assumption is that “most teens are not prepared” the author is global
labeling. The second, assumption is that involuntary parental consent forms “will
only damage the parent/child relationship”. Thirdly, that all teen girls who have
abortions will suffer some sort of side effect. Finally, Planned Parenthood is not
going to support a practice that is not profitable for them.
5. One descriptive assumption is that “this law needs to be changed before more
teenagers lives are destroyed”.
6. A girl will be less likely to get an abortion she wants if she must disclose her
intentions to her parents, would be the fallacy.
7. The evidence is not the greatest because there was no source was named other than
surveys taken by researcher with controlled subjects.
Mario Barrios
July 14, 2011
Cre101su12011
Mid-Term
8. The rivals cause came to be the lost of communication with the parent and child. Also
the loss of money / business due to the fact of parent consent in some states.
9. The statistics deceptive was that
10. The information omitted is those girls that do not get pregnant and those who do
how well are the coping with post abortion side effects. Also, those who do have an
open relationship.
11. It is possible to change the law or meet somewhere down the middle in order to have
some kind of author figure in minors life changing decisions.
12. The author in this article seemed to be filtering and global labializing. On top of that
the author used a distorted thinking style of being right. Though I personally agree
with the proposed law charging requirements I do not agree with some of the
authors thought.