critical analysis of Gerard Jones’s “Is Violent Media Good for Kids

The writer's general subject is whether or not violence is good or bad for a developing child. The purpose of the writer's argument is to show the benefits of exposing your children to violent content. The writer's position is that violence helps mold a child into an individual who can control their rage better, and can even help them to be well rounded individuals.The writer uses opinions more than fact to prove his point. He uses self experience to explain his plight. The evidence the writer presents is usage of Melanie Moore P.h.D. to back up his claims and his own account of personal experiences. The evidence is very convincing in my opinion due to the fact that some of my own life I can compare to his. Many of my beliefs even prior to reading this article are hand in hand with his. There is not enough evidence to convince most, especially parents raised with traditional values. The writer does speak of others opinions but does not go into as much details as I would have hoped. I would have like to see contrast of opinions on a grander scale, including news articles and personal opinions of others who do not hold his belief. The writer seems to be addressing an open minded younger audience along with trying to persuade older audiences. The writer see's his audience as neutral due to not writing in an IN-YOUR-FACE kind of fashion, but he is also bold enough to give a good argument. The writer appears to know what he is talking about. The writer shows little bias due to self experience. It is not as much bias as it is strong opinion, and it does give the article a natural feeling.