For this week’s entry, you will find and analyze an example of faulty reasoning you have encountered in the news or on a website. Your analysis should address one or more issues covered in the Carroll reading: emotive content; double-speak in the form of euphemisms, jargon, gobbledygook,or false implications; hedging; weasel words; ambiguity and vagueness etc. Don’t try to cover everything: it is often best to focus on one example in detail. Your analysis should be at least 300 words. The writing can be quite informal, as long as it is clear, structured, and aims to be free of errors. It is important that you include the link to the text you are analysing at the top of your entry. Alternatively, you could paste the text at the bottom of your entry. Grading Criteria: choice of text is suitable; analysis is thoughtful and accurate; writing is clear and free of errors; piece is neatly organized and presented and of sufficient length