1. What credibility did you give to the article after a first reading? Did you feel that the author adequately persuaded you to see their side of the issue? How subtle was this persuasion?
-When I first read this article, I kinda started out a little biased. I thought and still think the legalizing marijuana is dumb. Although, reading Anderson’s article did open my eyes to a few issues concerning money and how we are wasting it by putting people in jail for posession or use of marijunana. I do think it is outragous how much money we do spend on that, but it still doesnt change my mind about not legalizing marijuana.
2. How have your feelings changed now that you are more aware of the author’s ethos? Do you feel that knowing the credibility of the author changes the way in which you view the argument presented? What have you learned about the author’s education, peripheral writings, and career that altered your view of the article you are studying?
-My feelings toward the article changed somewhat while reading his article. Although, Anderson did use slang terms and did not cite his stattistics and facts, throughout his article, it did make me question his education and ability to write a credible article.
3. If you were writing an argumentative essay on the article’s topic, would you consider using the article as a credible source in your essay? Why or why not?
-I definetly would not used this article as a credible source. There is no credibility in the article. None of his facts are cited.
