Don't attempt this assignment until after you've read and fully understood all my comments on your previous writing. If you did wrong stuff in your previous work, doing the same wrong stuff again in this paper will definitely cost you a lot of points this time. I make comments so that you know not to do the same wrong thing in subsequent papers, so if you ignore my comments and repeat the same kind of mistakes again here you are basically guaranteeing that you will get a bad grade. If you want a good grade, you will read my comments on your previous work, figure out any and all of the things you did wrong, and not do those wrong things again.
This final assignment asks you to take what you've done so far and work out what just this limited set of information, implies about the intelligence and integrity of Nancy Keenan and Joel Pollak.
In real life, we might hesitate to draw conclusions about people based just on single examples of their writing. For purposes of this exercises, I want you to assume that each article is typical of each writer's work. This may be a false assumption, so you probably should not take your analysis here to be the definitive word on these two writers. This is just an exercise in working out the implications of certain facts and behaviors.
It should also be noted that these two writers are not a random sample of either political position. Neither of them should be taken as representative of people with their political views.
If you got less than 25/25 for any previous assignment, you should consult the green answers below before you proceed. After carefully analyzing both articles, I found that the available evidence supports the following conclusions.
1. Keenan described Ryan's voting record and present views very accurately. She may or may not have exaggerated the possible effects of Ryan's policies, and she may or may not have omitted some fact relevant to the possible effects of Ryan's policies, (and you might disagree with her about the meaning of the word "extreme") but she described his votes and positions accurately.
2. Pollak attacked Keenan, calling her a liar, and giving several examples of statements by her that he claimed to be lies. None of his accusations were true. (This doesn't mean that Keenan didn't get anything wrong, just that the specific things Pollak claimed to be wrone were not wrong.)
3. Pollak said that Keenan's statement about Ryan's votes against allowing servicewomen the right to obtain abortions at military hospitals was a lie. This was wrong. Keenan's statements were accurate. Pollak implied that the fact that military hospitals do not presently provide abortions proved Keenan worng. He was wrong. This fact had nothing to do with the issue.
4. Pollak said that Keenan lied when she said Ryan voted for what she called the "let women die bill." This was wrong. Ryan did vote for this bill HR358, which is officially called the "protect life act." Pollak said that Keenan lied when she described what the bill would make legal. This was wrong. Keenan was exactly right about what the bill said. (This doesn't mean she didn't make some other kind of mistake.)
5. Pollak said that Keenan made it seem as though Ryan had voted to ban abortion at all hospitals, even if the mother’s life was in mortal danger. This was wrong. Although several readers decided in their own minds that Keenan, in her own mind, wanted us to believe this particular, specific thing, but nothing she actually said contributed to creating this impression. Thus Keenan did not make it seem as though Ryan had voted to ban abortion at all hospitals. Pollak jumped to that conclusion on his own.
6. Pollak said that Keenan lied when she said Ryan held extreme views. While it may very well be true that Keenan's idea of "extreme" is very different from your idea of "extreme," it's not lying to use the word "extreme" differently from the way you would use it. And since Ryan is on record as opposing all except lifesaving abortions, it's understandable that Keenan would find his views extreme. stating a personal opinion is not lying, even when you personally disagree with that opinion.
Remember, if you got something wrong in a previous assignment, you need to fix it before you go on.
If you understand the answers given above, take the following list of questions, and answer as many as you can as best as you can, based on the answers given above. For each question you answer, do your best to explain and justify your answer as completely as you can,
When you've answered whatever questions you can, make any other relevant comments you can think of.
or,
Even if Pollak was wrong about Keenan, that doesn't mean Keenan's article was perfect. If you have not yet critiqued Keenan, or if you have, and have even more to say, review Keenan's article and see if you can find any genuine logical flaws, untruths or misleading language. (Not to drop hints, but an understanding of EMTALA might lead to finding a problem with something Keenan said or didn't say.) If you can't find any real problems with Keenan's article, don't pick this option. If you would be just repeating the content of a single previous paper, don't pick this option.
or,
If you can find something of virtue in Pollak's article, or if you can find a place where my critique of Pollak is overly harsh or unfair, you can write a paper defending Pollak's article. You must make sure that this defense is based entirely on an independent understanding of the available facts, and not on any personal feelings. (If all you do is mindlessly repeat all of Pollak's claims over again, uncritically taking his word for everything, you will get zero for this assignment.)