Family Readiness Group Article Analysis
This source is based on one side of the issue being discussed. The article is promoting the embrace of the Family Readiness program. This can clearly be seen in the way the author presents only the positives about the program; that is how the members of the units will benefit. In no instance is the author highlighting the disadvantages that the program might have.
How automatic the membership to the unit FRG is not clearly illustrated. Does the automaticity of the FRG membership …show more content…
In this type of fallacy the author sets up a very weak opposing side and subsequently wins it over. The author of this article has indirectly exhibited this type of fallacy because he does not acknowledge the opposing side at all. There is indeed a possibility that the FRG units may not be beneficial to some members of the soldier community will not benefit from the program because may be they have no family at all. This fallacy is normally avoided by anticipating in advance that one’s arguments will be strongly challenged. The author’s assumption that he won’t be challenged implies that he considers the opposing side …show more content…
Based on the above premises, the author concludes that effective FRG units are indeed beneficial to the members.
The author’s argument is inductive; although there is a high probability that the FRG units are important to the soldiers and their families, the possibility that some soldiers find them irrelevant can’t be ruled out. For instance, if a soldier has no family at all. This type of argument can be strong or weak.
The author however supports his argument with a lot of evidence and it is clear that the strong-weak demarcation line lies towards the strong side. The positive strength of an argument is not a straight indicator to whether it is sound or unsound. This characteristic of an argument is determined by analyzing the truth or facts presented in the premises. Considering the source of the facts carried by the premises, Army Community and Family Support Center, the author’s argument can be branded as sound.
The author does not use moral reasoning. This is evident in the way the author doesn’t consider the possibility that his arguments could be wrong and thus ends up being biased. He does not give the reader an opportunity to view the issue at hand from an opposing perspective from his. He assumes that whatever he thinks is right is actually