Question

1.read \disarming the great affordable housing debate\ and delineate and evaluate its argument. write a well - developed response explaining the following:

• greene and turner’s perspective, position, and major claims in \disarming the great affordable housing debate\
• how the authors’ argument is a response to edsall’s \where should a poor family live?\
• how greene and turner present counterclaims to opposing positions, information, and claims
• how edsall, as well as greene and turner, use rhetorical devices in their respective arguments to support their claims
• if you believe \disarming the great affordable housing debate\ is a convincing argument and your evaluation of it

Explanation:

To solve this, we analyze the text "Disarming the Great Affordable Housing Debate" and related works. First, identify Greene and Turner’s perspective (e.g., on affordable housing policies), their position (stance on issues like location, funding), and major claims (e.g., about housing solutions). Then, compare with Edsall’s "Where Should a Poor Family Live?" to see how Greene and Turner respond (e.g., countering Edsall’s views on poor families’ housing locations). Next, find counterclaims: how they address opposing views (e.g., against those who oppose certain housing policies). For rhetorical devices, look at Edsall’s and Greene/Turner’s use (e.g., logos with data, ethos with expertise, pathos with emotional appeals). Finally, evaluate if Greene/Turner’s argument is convincing (check evidence strength, logic, rebuttal effectiveness).

Answer:

To complete this, follow these steps: 1. Analyze Greene and Turner’s perspective (e.g., on affordable housing’s nature), position (e.g., policy support), and claims (e.g., housing as a right). 2. Compare with Edsall’s work to identify Greene/Turner’s response (e.g., refuting Edsall’s focus on location). 3. Find counterclaims (e.g., against "housing causes poverty" views). 4. Identify rhetorical devices (e.g., Edsall’s anecdotes, Greene/Turner’s data). 5. Evaluate the argument’s convincingness (e.g., strong evidence, logical flow).