Analysis of an Argument.
Part A.  This part of the take-home exam asks you to identify components of reasoning in an editorial from a New York regional newspaper. It is an opinion piece, that appears (ostensibly) not to be making recommendations.
The specific questions you are asked to answer follow the text of the editorial below. It was published October 2, 2019, by the Times-Union (a newspaper based in Albany, New York, serving the four-county Capital Region of the state).

A gun to America’s head
THE ISSUE:
Two years after a mass shooting in Las Vegas, stronger gun control remains undone.
THE STAKES:
The president’s political games make it only a matter of time before a horrific record is broken.
Tuesday marked the anniversary of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. The deadliest, that is, for now.
One might think that, two years after a gunman killed 58 people in Las Vegas and wounded 422 more, Congress and the Trump administration would not still be at a virtual impasse on stronger gun control legislation. And yet, here they are, professing to want to talk about it, and getting nearly nothing done.
It seems far more likely that another killer will break the Las Vegas sniper’s gruesome record than that President Donald Trump will “stop the games.” That’s not our phrase, by the way, but one attributed to the National Rifle Association’s chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, who is apparently as frustrated with Mr. Trump’s coy act as the rest of us, though obviously for different reasons. The only use Mr. LaPierre seems to have for gun laws is to use hyperbole about them to scare gun owners into giving his beleaguered organization money.
To be fair, the government did take one action in response to the Las Vegas massacre it banned bump stocks, devices that make semiautomatic weapons perform like automatic ones. But even that no-brainer took 541 days, as the NRA insisted it be done through regulation, not law a route that conveniently took far longer than a law would have, allowing bump stock suppliers nearly a year and half to sell off their inventory. The rule requires owners to turn their bump stocks in or destroy them, but how many remain in private hands is anyone’s guess.
Bumps stocks, of course, were an easy target. Neither Congress nor the administration have gone after far more common tools of mass shooters, particularly high-powered assault rifles and high-capacity magazines that enable shooters to kill dozens of people without pausing to reload.
For all their talk of “doing something about mental illness,” they’ve yet to pass “red flag” legislation that would allow courts to order a person’s guns be taken away if they’re showing clear signs of imminent violence.
Even universal background checks for all gun sales, supported by a majority of gun owners, remains undone, with Mr. Trump saying one day he favors the idea as a way to mollify a group of grieving parents or other survivors, only to wimp out after a call or other signal from Mr. LaPierre.
Now comes word that the White House reached out to members of Congress in recent days asking them not to let the impeachment inquiry into Mr. Trump derail ongoing discussions about gun legislation. Word comes, too, that Republicans in the Senate are ready to act if and when Mr. Trump is ready. And reports that Mr. LaPierre gave Mr. Trump another talking to last Friday. So now Mr. Trump is using the House’s impeachment inquiry as an excuse not to get anything done on gun control.
Two years after the deadliest shooting in U.S. history, Americans can be fairly sure that somewhere out there is a killer armed and ready to break the record, and a president unwilling to do a damn thing to try to prevent it.

THE QUESTIONS. Answers should be no more than a few sentences each.

1. Summarize what you perceive as the editorial writers values assumptions,
and be sure to reference/name at least three elements in the text that provide insight into what they are.
(ANSWER ANY TWO (2) OF THE FOLLOWING.
2. Identify the editorials conclusions, and what parts of its reasoning structure
support themor should, but dont (in your opinion).
3. How does the writers tonequality of diction, word choicecontribute to the argument? Be sure to cite relevant examples.
4. As a strong sense critical thinker, if you agree with the editorial, identify at least two elements in the reasoning that you believe would be problematic
5. for someone who doesnt share your point of view (and explain why they would be problematic).
OR if you dont agree with the editorial, identify at least two elements in the reasoning that you might begrudgingly acknowledge merit consideration.