Analyzing the Pro and Con Arguments on a Ballot Measure

Analyzing the Pro and Con Arguments on a Ballot Measure
by Brian W. Carver
1. Read the analysis by the legislative analyst. This analysis is supposed to be impartial and is provided because most of us are not lawyers and reading the full text of some of the laws can be bewildering. You should keep in mind though, that the full text of the proposition is provided so that if you want information not provided by the legislative analyst or want to check the veracity of the analyst's comments you can make reference to the full text of the proposition. Jot down key facts you think might be important from this analysis.

2. Read over the Argument for the Proposition, the Rebuttal to the Argument in Favor of the Proposition, the Argument Against the Proposition, and the Rebuttal to the Argument against the proposition. Decide which side you would like to argue against. You do not have to base this on your actual opinion. You might choose to argue where you believe you can make the best argument, regardless of your own views.

If you decide to be IN FAVOR of the proposition, do steps 3 - 5.
If you decide to be AGAINST the proposition, do steps 6 - 8.

3. Analyze the Argument Against the Proposition. Use the 10-step method, but rather than write it all out, summarize your analysis in a couple paragraphs. As you do the analysis, keep in mind the legislative analyst's summary. Is the argument conveying the facts accurately or ignoring facts not favorable to their position? Also, does the topic seem to require any special expertise? If so, does the information provided indicate that the author(s) might have such expertise? Does the person making this argument have any conflicts of interest that might make us suspicious of their motives? Why is this author opposed to the proposition?
4. Analyze the Rebuttal to the Argument in Favor of the Proposition. Again, the 10-step method should be used, but your results should be summarized in paragraph form. Keep in mind what you read in the Argument in Favor of the Propostion. In particular, pay attention to whether or not the rebuttal stays on topic. Does the rebuttal point out any problems you noticed in reading the argument in favor of the proposition?

5. You have now read both of the arguments that oppose your chosen position. Keeping these in mind, write your own argument in favor of the proposition. While you might refer to the actual argument in favor of the proposition, I will be looking for your argument to be original. Anticipate the objections that those against the proposition made, and craft an argument in favor of the proposition that addresses these concerns. Don't just repeat the same things you say in your analyses above. Those analyses should be focused on criticizing your opponent, while your argument here should be focused on supporting your own position. Be sure to give credit to anyone whose arguments you use or build on, and if you use quotations make it clear who said it and where. Limit yourself to a paragraph or two, about the same length of the other arguments you've read.

Now go to step 9.

6. Analyze the Argument for the Proposition. Use the 10-step method, but rather than write it all out, summarize your analysis in a couple paragraphs. As you do the analysis, keep in mind the legislative analyst's summary. Is the argument conveying the facts accurately or ignoring facts not favorable to their position? Also, does the topic seem to require any special expertise? If so, does the information provided indicate that the author(s) might have such expertise?
7. Analyze the Rebuttal to Argument Against the Proposition. Again use the 10-step method summarized in paragraph form. Again, ask whether or not the rebuttal stays on topic. Does this rebuttal point out all the problems you noticed in your analysis of the argument against the proposition? Does the person making this argument have any conflicts of interest that might make us suspicious of their motives? Why is this author in favor of the proposition?

8. You have now read both of the arguments that oppose your chosen position. Keeping these in mind, write your own argument against the proposition. While you might refer to the actual argument against the proposition, I will be looking for your argument to be original. Respond to the points that those in favor of the proposition made, and craft an argument against the proposition that addresses these points. Don't just repeat the same things you say in your analyses above. Those analyses should be focused on criticizing your opponent, while your argument here should be focused on supporting your own position. Be sure to give credit to anyone whose arguments you use or build on, and if you use quotations make it clear who said it and where. Limit yourself to a paragraph or two, about the same length of the other arguments you've read.

Now go to step 9.

9. Did you keep in mind the legislative analyst's comments when doing each analysis and writing your argument? Did anyone's argument seem to contradict the facts? Are any of the arguments off-topic? Are there other factors not discussed that would (or should) influence how you would vote or how some people will vote? Make sure your analyses and your argument takes these things into acount.

10. Now that you have greater familiarity with the issue, write an introductory paragraph that highlights the key points of the legislative analyst's analysis. This paragraph should explain the proposition well enough that someone who had not read any of this would be able to understand what changes to the law will happen if the proposition passes. Also in this paragraph, explain the structure of what will follow. (Keep reading and you'll learn what that structure is!) You probably have at least six paragraphs written now, and we need to organize them. Make your outline look like one of these, depending on whether you were in favor of or against the proposition:

IN FAVOR of the proposition
AGAINST the proposition

I. Introductory Paragraph summarizing legislative analyst's analysis (1)
II. Summary of Arguments Against the Proposition (1-2)
III. Your Analyses of the Arguments Against the Proposition (1-2)
IV. Your Original Argument in Favor of the Proposition (1-2)
I. Introductory Paragraph summarizing legislative analyst's analysis (1)
II. Summary of Arguments In Favor of the Proposition (1-2)
III. Your Analyses of the Arguments In Favor of the Proposition (1-2)
IV. Your Original Argument Against of the Proposition (1-2)

To make your outline look like this you will have to combine some of the paragraphs you wrote above. In Section II you revise your paragraphs that dealt with each of the arguments you looked at to try to summarize their points. So Section II does not involve criticism, just explanation. In Section III you revise your paragraphs that dealt with each of the arguments you looked at to try to summarize your points of criticism. It's in Section III that you focus on criticizing your opponents' arguments. Then finally in Section IV you present your own original argument for your position (that you wrote above).

IN FAVOR of the proposition	AGAINST the proposition
I. Introductory Paragraph summarizing legislative analyst's analysis (1) II. Summary of Arguments Against the Proposition (1-2) III. Your Analyses of the Arguments Against the Proposition (1-2) IV. Your Original Argument in Favor of the Proposition (1-2)	I. Introductory Paragraph summarizing legislative analyst's analysis (1) II. Summary of Arguments In Favor of the Proposition (1-2) III. Your Analyses of the Arguments In Favor of the Proposition (1-2) IV. Your Original Argument Against of the Proposition (1-2)