Write an argument essay on “ The negative impact of The no child left behind act.” Be a minimum of 1000 words, but no more than 1500 (not including the abstract). Third-person POV (no I, you, we, us, our)

• No contractions

Finding a Gap in the Conversation: To fill out this worksheet, write the name of each source’s author in the block labeled “participant #”. Then, in each author’s row, fill out what each author believes when it comes to the questions at the bottom of the worksheet. This then allows you to compare the different authors’ stances and points of view more directly, see what’s NOT being said, and identify where the authors agree and disagree with one another.

Paragraph goes here:

In addition to filling in the mapping worksheet, answer these questions:

· What did you learn about the debate fromfilling out the worksheet?

· Where do the participants disagree the most?

· Which of the participants do you agree with? Which do you disagree with?

· What sort of evidence do the authors give to support their claims? Which evidence is most compelling and convincing?

· What gaps exist in the conversation? In other words, are there any solutions, definitions, causes, etc that they are not suggesting that would help move the conversation forward?

Finding a Gap in the Conversation: To fill out this worksheet, write the name of each source’s author in the block labeled “participant #”. Then, in each author’s row, fill out what each author believes when it comes to the questions at the bottom of the worksheet. This then allows you to compare the different authors’ stances and points of view more directly, see what’s NOT being said, and identify where the authors agree and disagree with one another.

Yes

Bad

Yes

Bad

Yes

Bad

Yes

Bad

Of all the participants of my selected articles, none of them agree 100% with each other aside from the fact that there is a problem (although they do not agree on what this problem is). Many of the “anti-gunners” propose the problem to be the easy access of firearms and the loss of life that firearms are capable of whereas the “pro-gunners” seem to believe that false media reporting and distortion of evidence, combined with the simple fact that humans are violently natured paint a negative picture of firearms and their use in America. The definitions of all the authors problems are all slightly different (which I find interesting) however the all agree that the problem is seriously needing to be addressed. Solutions to problems vary from elimination and restriction of firearms sale and distribution to identifying and treating the underlying problem of violence. Most all authors, even those on the same side seem to disagree slightly with each other and naturally all against each other on opposing sides, of which they all do offer valid points mostly in the form of case studies, statistics and individual stories to represent their own personal beliefs. Of all the authors, I actually agree and disagree with most all of them in some respect except for Endearle, who provides a very strong notion of compromise to the situation which would ultimately (in my opinion) most likely allow this argument to progress and hopefully be solved. The strong statistics of the benefit of firearms in the hands of the responsible citizen by Agreseti strike my attention specifically but also to the tragic heart-string-pulling stories of victims of gun crime written by Lepore.