Exercise 10, Dr Johnson, why can we hit our kids?, p. 40.
What is the author’s main contention?: policy makers must ban smacking
The author’s supporting reasons:
- We must ban smacking because the laws discriminate against children who are frequently subjected to abuse as second class citizens.
- Parents often abuse the laws.
The author’s evidence: first-hand personal/professional experience as a counsellor, which is also supported by the results of a survey; (which reveals that parents interpret reasonable punishment in different and extreme ways.)
Her use of evidence: Ms Johnson uses the evidence to discredit/attack parents and show their lack of trustworthiness (homicide; their interpretations differ.)
Comparison/analogy: to prove her point that the laws are inconsistent; strangers are treated better than second-class citizens/children.
Key Idea: children are treated as second-class citizens
- Persuasive strategies: evidence; experience; comparisons and analogies
- Purpose: seek a change to the laws; through fear tactics
Key idea: Parents often abuse inconsistent and discriminatory laws.
- Persuasive strategies: survey; persuasive language/words; Attack; appeals to equal and human rights
- Persuasive purpose: isolate; distance parents; shame.