Logical

A logical analysis goes like this.

First, separate the argument(s). You will be doing each argument on it's own, so I suggest you put each argument on a different piece of paper.

Then, for each argument, write a paragraph, or a page, or a short paper, in which you do the following.
1. Write out the argument as clearly, as precisely, and as fairly as you can. (Write it the way a proponant would want it written.)
2. Explain as clearly as you can what this argument is supposed to imply for this topic, and how it is supposed to imply it.
(Maybe it's supposed to support the thesis directly, or maybe it's supposed to answer a counter-argument.)
3. Figure out and explain what logical principle is supposed to justify these implications.
4. Explain what that logical principle would imply if it were applied in other contexts. Look for applications that have unacceptable results.
5. Say whether or not that principle has acceptable results when applied in those other contexts.
6. Explain how this logical principle is supposed to be justified, if it has a justification.
7. Explain what else would also be justified by that justification. Try to find a bad think that it would justify.
8. Say whether or these other things are good or bad.
9. Say whether or not it is a good logical principle.
If it doesn't work in all of those other contexts, then it's not a good principle.
or if it has no underlying justification, then it's not a good principle.
If its underlying justification would also "justify" something bad, then it's not a good principle.
10. Say whether or not the argument is good or bad. (If it's not based on a good logical principle, it's bad.)

Here's an example.
1. Some people say that cat juggling is morally wrong because people have a subconscious definition of cats as non-flying animals.
2. This argument implies that cat juggling is morally wrong because it involves flying cats, and cats are not defined as flying animals.
3. The logical principle seems to be that "non-flying animals shouldn't ever fly."
4. In other contexts, this principle would imply that cats and dogs and other animals shouldn't be allowed on airplanes. Also, since humans are animals, this would imply that humans shouldn't use airplanes either.
5. These are not acceptable results. People have to fly to visit their friends and relatives who live far away.
6. The justification seems to be "we should always act according to our subconscious definitions."
7. Racism would be justified, since some people subconsciously define other races as inferior.