Posted: January 31st, 2023

Writing A JOURNAL ARTICLE Critical Analysis

Use this assignment and the attached document to complete your first journal article analysis. Provide your response using the attachment provided and follow ALL parts of the assignment.

Writing A JOURNAL ARTICLE Critical Analysis _1_.docxPreview the document

JOURNAL ARTICLE:

Read an essay by Political Science Professor Richard C. Cortner on “The Nationalization of the Bill of Rights: An Overview.” This site is jointly sponsored by the American Political Science Association and American Historical Association.

http://faculty.smu.edu/jkobylka/supremecourt/Nationalization_BoRs.pdf (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Writing A JOURNAL ARTICLE Critical Analysis

The purpose for writing a journal article critical analysis is to evaluate a scholarly author’s work (a book, an essay, an article) in order to increase the reader’s understanding of it. While a summary is a small repetition of the main points of a passage, a critical analysis expresses the writer’s opinion or evaluation of a text. Analysis means to break down and study the parts.

Writing a critical analysis requires two steps: critical reading and critical writing.

Critical Reading does the following:

1. Identify the author’s thesis and purpose.
2. Analyze the structure of the passage by identifying all main ideas.
3. Consult a dictionary or encyclopedia to understand material that is unfamiliar to you.
4. Write your summary of the work before writing the critical analysis.
5. Before actually writing the critical analysis, answer the following questions:
 What is the source of the material?
 What are the author’s qualifications?
 Are there more facts or opinions given?
 What is the author’s purpose?
 Is there any bias present in the passage?
 Who is the author’s intended audience?
 What is the tone of the passage?
 What is the intended meaning of the passage?

Critical Writing presents the following:

1. Start your critical analysis by giving the title, author, and purpose of the passage.
2. Choose several of the areas (at least 3) that you analyzed in your critical reading that are noteworthy and discuss them in several sentences (at least 5).
3. Finish your critical analysis with a total assessment of the article. What is your overall view of the article (review the content as well as the formatting)? Is it well-written?
4. What should not be in a critical analysis:
a. I liked this article because…
b. I didn’t like this article because…
5. The goal is to analyze the article and MOST IMPORTANTLY describe the Criminal Justice factors within the article. Lastly, be sure to analyze and not repeat the article itself.

Attached below is an example of a journal article analysis that you may use as an example. It was retrieved from https://essays.homeworkacetutors.com/write-my-essay/tc.umn.edu/~jewel001/CollegeWriting/WRITEREAD/CritReview/samples.htm

• Remember that your paper will need to include a cover page AND a reference page.

SPECIAL NOTES: This paper is written in APA style. Because there are only two sources and this paper was not assigned as a research project, the authors’ names and a publication date are not repeated after each quotation and paraphrase, nor is there a bibliography. This paper has a summary section. At the end, an optional final evaluation is offered.
University of Minnesota
Eng 1011, Honors College Composition
Analysis
© 2000 by John Webb
Suicides Using Guns: An Analysis
by John Webb
Introduction
In the article “The Number of Gun-Related Teen Suicides is Exaggerated,” David B. Kopel (1998) insists that removing firearms from homes would not reduce the rate of teen suicide. Kopel says, “Many gun-control advocates assert that removing firearms from the home would reduce the rate of teen suicide” (p. 56). Kopel also contends, “While the percentage of teen suicide by firearms is high in the United States, the numbers have remained stable for many years.” This paper will analyze Kopel’s essay from the perspective of a gun-control advocate, with the help of the perspective developed in an article by Christopher Scanlan (1998), “Guns in the Home Contribute to Teen Suicide.”
Summary
The introductory section of Kopel’s article states that gun-control advocates have exaggerated the extent of teen suicides by firearms. Kopel continues the article by saying that gun control advocates use false statistics in their reasoning and in their explanation for the rate of teen suicide. The next section of the article stresses how gun-control laws have no effect on the rate of teen suicides in United States. The last portion of Kopel’s essay mentions how gun-control advocates have resorted to using factoids written by different reporters around the country to try and get across their message of pro-gun control across.
Kopel uses a helpful source, Gary Kleck, to back up his arguments on the issue of teen suicide. Mr. Kleck is a Criminologist at Florida State University. Kleck conducted a study of suicide rates and gun laws in every American city with a population over 100,000. The concluding results were that there seemed to be no evidence that any of the gun-control laws had a statistical effect on suicide rates in teens. These findings back up Kopel’s argument that gun laws have no effect, and Kopel uses these findings to a great extent against the gun-control advocates.
Suicides Exaggerated?
A first point of analysis has to do with Kopel’s statement that gun-control advocates have exaggerated the extent of teen suicides by firearms. Kopel says, “If guns are not available, teenagers who want to kill themselves will merely find another method” (p. 56). Kopel insists that the percentage of teen suicide has remained stable for many years. From the mid-1950’s to the late 1970’s, teenage suicide rose sharply, and most of the increase was due to gun suicides. However, since then, the teenage suicide rate has remained relatively stable and so has the percentage of suicides involving guns.
Gun-control advocates like Christopher Scanlan, who wrote the article “Guns in the Home Contribute to Teen Suicide,” believe that gun-control advocates haven’t exaggerated the extent of teen suicides by firearms. Scanlan contends, “The easy availability of guns contributes to the high rate of teen suicide” (p. 51). The main argument of Scanlan and the gun-control advocates is that the incidence of teenagers killing themselves with firearms has increased dramatically, while the rate of suicides by other means has remained the same.
False Statistics?
Another issue for analysis is Kopel’s belief that gun-control advocates frequently use false statistics in their arguments. Kopel critiques the advocates when for citing false statistics to justify their sense of the matter. For example, in 1989, according to Kopel, the American Academy of Pediatrics told a Congressional committee that “every three hours, a teenager commits suicide with a handgun.” However, as Kopel points out, this figure is only valid if one counts all the suicides as handgun suicides, or if one calls every person under 25 a teenager. In addition, Kopel (1989) insists, “Gun-control supporters simply assume that fewer firearms would mean fewer suicides” (p. 57). Kopel can see the fact that if guns were less available, maybe suicide would decline. However, he insists that this is not inferable from the evidence.
However, Gun-control advocates do not believe they use false statistics in their arguments. In a nation where half the homes contain at least one firearm, guns and youth are a fatal combination that annually kills more than 1,400 American youths between the ages of ten and nineteen. This is one youth gun suicide every six hours. By restricting the access of teenagers to guns, suicides could be reduced by twenty percent. Twenty percent is nearly 300 teenagers saved per year. Teen suicide rates have quadrupled since 1950, and according to Scanlan, a leading panel of firearm researchers concluded that the increase was fueled by rapid growth in gun suicides. Another twist to the situation is that guns also put at risk large numbers of young people who consider suicide. According to Scanlan, a 1990 nationwide federal health survey of high school students found that more than one in four young people had thought seriously about attempting suicide. Scanlan simply states, “Keeping guns out of the reach of children saves lives” (p. 52).
Gun Control Useless?
A third issue for analysis is that Kopel firmly believes gun-control laws have no effect. He backs this strong statement with the help of Gary Kleck (1998), a criminologist at Florida State University. As was stated earlier in this paper, Kleck analyzed suicide rates and gun laws in every American city with a population over 100,000. He took into account all the factors that might affect suicide, such as race, religion, economic situations, and nineteen different gun-control laws. The result was that Kleck found no evidence that any of the gun-control laws had a statistical effect on suicide rates. Kleck pointed out, “People who had decided to kill themselves simply substituted other, equally lethal methods” (p. 57). According to Kopel, it appears That data from other countries support Kleck’s conclusion. An example is Great Britain. There, gun control laws are much stricter than in the United States; however, teenage suicide rose sharply during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.
Teen suicides often go unnoticed in the national debate over firearm violence and gun control. According to Scanlan, in a nationwide survey of youth suicide prevention programs, none reported a major effort to limit gun access. Instead, government resources are being targeted at other problems such as violence against women, homicides, and violence against young people. However, says Scanlan, one hopeful sign has sprung up in the last couple of years. In 1993, the American Association of Suicidology voted to organize a workshop to bring together health advocates and gun enthusiasts to seek common ground on the issue of reducing access to firearms to our youth in society. According to Scanlan, National Rifle Association Research Coordinator Paul Blackman (1998) declared, “Sounds good to me. We’re here and waiting” (Scanlan, p. 53). The National Rifle Association is very skeptical, noting that the suicidology group sides with gun control advocates in favoring laws that restrict gun access.
Myths or Facts?
A final point of analysis is of how Kopel is fed up with gun-control advocates using factoids to try and support their arguments. For example, according to Kopel, the Washington Post (1998) stated, “Teenagers in homes with guns are 76 times more likely to kill themselves than teenagers living in homes without guns” (p. 58). Kopel insists that this is how myths supporting gun control are started. Kopel says, “Given the lack of evidence that gun control reduced suicide, anti-gun activists have to resort to factoids to prove their case” (p. 58).
Scanlan and other gun-control advocates believe they simply state the cold, hard facts about the teen suicide problem. Gun-control advocates around the country resort to studies certifying that the increase of guns coincides with a rise in firearm suicides. For example, says Scanlan, a 1991 study in western Pennsylvania found that the risk of youth suicide increased when guns were present in the home, no matter how carefully they were stored. Unfortunately, says Scanlan, the largest increase has been among the young, typically a group that is looking for quick solutions to life’s difficulties. Scanlan stresses, “Suicide among all ages remain one of the nation’s most enduring public health problems” (p. 54). He adds, “Without ready access to guns, many youth suicides might remain suicide attempts.”
Conclusion
This paper has analyzed the article “The Number of Gun-Related Teen Suicides is Exaggerated” by David B. Kopel. Kopel insists gun-control laws have no effect on teenage suicide rates, and he believes that removing firearms from the home would not reduce the rate of teen suicide. Kopel insists that gun control advocates state false statistics, use untrue factoids, and believe falsely that gun-control laws have an effect on teenage suicides. Even though Kopel agrees in theory with gun-control advocates’ that “fewer guns equal fewer teenage suicides,” he states, “The evidence is not there to simply say fewer guns equal fewer teenage suicides” (p. 57). However, after analyzing Kopel’s essay, it is reasonable to suggest that suicide should be looked upon more as a whole. Perhaps instead of just concentrating on gun-related suicides, Kopel and gun-control advocates such as Scanlan should be focusing on suicide in general, for perhaps the blame for youth suicide by guns can’t be laid just on gun control or its lack, but on society as a whole.

Order | Check Discount