This paper concentrates on the primary theme of why are Japanese-Americans concentrated in 3 large cities on the Pacific coast? in which you have to explain and evaluate its intricate aspects in detail. In addition to this, this paper has been reviewed and purchased by most of the students hence; it has been rated 4.8 points on the scale of 5 points. Besides, the price of this paper starts from £ 45. For more details and full access to the paper, please refer to the site.
About 300-500 words.
Describe, with details, one or (preferably)
two lessons you have learned from this course regarding
analyzing and constructing arguments.
Think about this carefully and don’t just write what first occurs to
you. Do not discuss history or law, but
focus on what are the ways of making effective arguments or analyzing someone
else’s arguments. Use examples from the
course, providing details to support your conclusions.
Key
Points to Remember as Lessons, The Art of Argument.
1.
Be accurate about
everything! Even small mistakes make the
analysis and the argument look stupid.
Examples: Moore’s Racism in the
English Language; your own essays when some piece of evidence was contradicted
by the reading.
2.
The history behind an issue can
be very useful. See Justice Stone in
Hirabayashi recounting the history of the early months of World War II in the
Pacific, the Japanese victories showing the apparent danger facing the United
States. See Dennis, where Justice
Jackson points out how the events in Czechoslovakia in 1948 show how the
Communists could use ordinary political forces to take over the
government. See Roe v Wade, where the
history of American and British laws on abortion makes the court’s decision
look less extreme.
3.
If you are analyzing or
attacking a policy, the reason behind the policy can be important to your
analysis or attack. Unfortunately for
this course, in Brown the reason for the “separate but equal” rule and the laws
favoring racial segregation, i.e., racism, were never examined. But in Korematsu, Justice Murphy does provide
evidence of racism underlying the discrimination against
Japanese-Americans. And in Dennis,
Justices Douglass and Frankfurter provide reasons for freedom of speech that go
far beyond ideas of moral behavior and reach into the importance of free speech
for democracy and stable government.
4.
Sometimes, new information is a
crucial part of an argument. See Brown,
where the court discussed the increased importance of public school education
to reconsidering the meaning of the 14th Amendment and the validity
of Plessy v Ferguson. See Brown, where
the importance of psychological studies provides further information on the
harm done by racial segregation.
5.
Always consider the possibility
of alternative explanations for an important fact. In Racism in the English Language, Moore
fails dreadfully because he never considers an alternative —
for Moore, any negative use of
the word “black” or its synonyms must be based on racism, even though, for example,
the dark of nighttime obviously goes back to the fear of night and its unseen
dangers during the history of civilization and before, an issue totally
divorced from racist feelings. In the
case of Benedict Arnold, there are a variety of alternative explanations as to
why Arnold turned traitor, and we cannot be sure of the correct answer or
answers. In Hirabayashi and Korematsu,
several arguments made by the military and accepted by Justice Stone are
contradicted by Justice Murphy. For
example, why are Japanese-Americans concentrated in 3 large cities on the
Pacific coast? Is this evidence of a
plot to sabotage American bases? In the
Bell family fight, is Esther’s explanation of the overall family situation more
convincing than Ford’s?
Also, consider
the possibility of alternative solutions to problems. In Korematsu, Justice Murphy describes other
ways of protecting US security from those Japanese-Americans who are disloyal,
following the recent example of Britain.
6.
Review evidence carefully to
make sure it is not superficial. In
Hirabayashi and Korematsu, Murphy shows various areas where the evidence of
Japanese-American disloyalty is superficial and does not stand up to careful
and balanced analysis. See also the prosecution’s
cases against John Doe and Charles Roe.
Doe introduced 3 of the conspirators, so he must be guilty? Roe was SA’s accountant, so he must have
known of the tax fraud?
7.
Keep your analysis
balanced. This is a mixture of points 1
and 6. See Moore’s article, Hirabayashi and Korematsu,
the Bell family fight. Of course, in
Dennis, Justice Frankfurter is so balanced that he seems unable to come to a
conclusion.
8.
Always examine carefully to
determine the motives for people saying or doing or not doing certain
things. See the motives for the
imprisonment of Japanese-Americans; see the possible motive for the Dennis
decision based on the Red Scare / McCarthyism.
What motive did John Doe have for committing the fraud on the bank? What motive did Charles Roe have for helping
in the SA tax fraud? What motives were
behind the three people who accused Roe?
9.
Examine the reliability of
witnesses. This is connected to points
1, 6, and 8.
10. Organize your analysis or
argument. Make sure that the point you
make is internally organized. Do not
just throw one argument after another.
Keep separate those points that do not relate directly to each other.
11. Use details to support your argument. Without details, your analysis is not
persuasive. Without details, Murphy’s
argument that the US could have protected its security without mass
imprisonment has no weight. Without
details, John Doe’s claim of ignorance of the bank fraud is not believable. Without details that describe the SA fraud,
Hawkins’ comment that the fraud was the work of an amateur is much less
convincing; without details, the significance of Roe’s firm’s non-audit work is
unclear;without details, you have no reason to believe that Calvin Simon needed
to target Roe to the government.
A FEW MORE SPECIFIC POINTS
12. Sometimes you avoid obvious arguments to reach a better result. Thurgood Marshall in Brown did not discuss
the fact that separate was never equal from a money point of view, because he
wanted to show that separate was never equal even if the money situation was
equal, so that he could argue of the need to end all racial separation.
13. When somebody claims that a danger must be solved at once, inquire
as to whether the danger is so great or so immediate. See Justice Douglas in Dennis talking about
the danger of the US Communist Party.
See Murphy in Korematsu questioning how great the Japanese-American
danger was to the Pacific coast.
14. Always examine the meaning of a silence: Roe’s failure to contact Spence or Ode at SA
for 40 days while an audit was coming; the failure of Rocky and Bill to testify
that John Doe knew of the bank fraud?
15. Uncertainty can sometimes be used to challenge an argument or
policy. In Roe v Wade, even though the
argument to stop abortions is a strong one, the uncertainty about when human
life begins and what is human life is a strong counter in favor of allowing
abortions.
16. Look for facts that have only one believable explanation: they
eliminate uncertainty and strengthen an analysis. For example, in the John Doe case, the return
by Jack and Rocky of stolen money to the bank:
could there be any reason for this strange behavior except that John Doe
demanded it? Would John Doe have
demanded the return of money if he knew about the fraud in the first place?