As soon as I read the first word I knew that this would be an opinionated blog related post. The author, Kurtis Helana, starts off his article as if he is about to embark on a rant by saying “First off, what happened at Sandy Hook Elm. is just a horrible thing” (Helana). From this sentence I cannot gage how he will present his argument and I think that it is a weak topic sentence, because it did not captivate me in any way. I also did not believe this article to be scholarly because in his second paragraph he says: “…we have people arguing that if we had god in the classroom…”(Helana), God is not capitalized. How often does one forget to capitalize ‘God’? I believe a credited author would not make that mistake. The author’s argument is also weakened by his lack of variety with vocabulary. In the second paragraph he repeatedly states how things are ‘idiotic’ this makes his argument sound opinionated and untruthful. As it turns out, the author is just an opinionated writer that desires to rid the world of ignorance, according to Google. Therefore the author is not credible.
One of the major fallacies that I noticed was how the author tried to use his brother’s autism as a benchmark for most autistic people to act. He compared the actions of the shooter to his brother’s incapabilities to make those same decisions. Also, it was hard to discern what Helana’s main arguments were, he jumped around from topic to topic within this post. He started talking about guns, then spoke about drugs, and his autistic brother. Nothing in the body of this essay flows which makes his argument sound false. I knew the overall idea of this article, which was the Sandy Hook Elm shooting, but there were no clearly defined arguments I suppose the genre is blog post since it would not count for a scholarly source.
Helena, Kurtis. “OP-ED: CT School Shooting.” Examiner.com. 18 December 2012.Web. 23 April 2014.