Phil Zuckerman's Argument Essay

In 2015, Phil Zuckerman from The Los Angeles Times wrote an article, “How secular family values stack up”. In his article, he claims that more children are “growing up godless” than at any other time in our nation’s history. Phil Zuckerman provides credibility, sufficiency, warrants and reasoning all within his article. The argument being made is whether children need to be raised with religion or not. Phil uses his own research and multiple outside sources to help support his claim. Throughout Zuckerman’s article he presents both, good and bad arguments to the extent of how each criterion is being used in each section. Throughout this article, the credibility of these sources used in the text are good. Most of these sources …show more content…
A warrant is being presented in this section of the article and is somewhat relatable to today’s world. Although, just because it is studies from a University does not mean it is accurate or reliable. It agrees with what Phil Zuckerman is claiming of children “growing up godless” and it explains into further detail in why it is more beneficial on adults. In paragraph 7 it explains, “Many psychological studies show that secular grownups tend to be less vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian and more tolerant, on average, than religious adults” (Zuckerman 2). Although by making this assumption they are using a fallacy, stacking the deck. They explain all of the benefits of how it’s technically better to not be apart of a religious group, although they are not showing the proof for their statement. The Universities studies are leaving out extra parts, and it just does not seem to add up correctly. Also, it seems to me that their research seems biased than actual evidence to help support the claim. Overall, reading through this part of the article, it makes readers disagree with their reasoning although it supports the authors