https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/25/us-abortion-bans-states-after-roe-v-wadeThe argument presented is that the right to abort is a human

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/25/us-abortion-bans-states-after-roe-v-wadeThe argument presented is that the right to abort is a human right and shouldn't be something that's banned. Any person deserves to choose whether they want to carry or terminate their pregnancy, as it's their body, and their choice.The evidence presented is showing the stats for how many women are affected by the banning of abortion and contraception (no mentions of any non-women that have the same risk) and explaining how much more difficult and dangerous it is to ban the medical procedure. They also make mention of which states do allow abortions still (at the time of writing the article) and how many don't, and mentioning the risks to not only the person carrying but anyone that gets involved with helping them to find an alternative.Additional evidence they could have shown is the stats for non-women that also have a womb & risk of pregnancy, though that can be a hard statistic to get with how many people fear being public about not being cisgender. They could also mention the amount of children in adoption and foster care, as forcing these people to have children will raise these numbers for sure. They could also mention the rate of child abuse in families, because unfortunately, forcing children on people/families that don't want them could cause a hatred/anger from the parent towards their child, and end up in an abusive situation. The author could also add in the rates of miscarriage and deaths from childbirth, as some people do get abortions out of necessity for their own health.

Hi Alex,You've picked a great article for a very important topic. You can continue to use this article for A2.You've done a good job with the analysis. I think you can develop some of these points further. You need to be more specific still about the main argument - be clear about how the author links this topic to current changes in the law and also the kinds of predictions that are made at the end of the article.The evidence would also include any individuals or groups that are cited in the article. It would also include the analysis of current laws and / or a timeline of recent events in relation to this topic.Good job thinking about what was not included in the article.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/29/us-house-assault-weapons-ban-bill-senateThe article above is about the United States gun control and emphasising on the banning on assault weapons. Within the article itself it shows a video of congress placing fault on the firearm manufacturer not the individuals responsible on the shootings.The evidence provided shows number of deaths recently in the last few years and the preferred firearm that was used. It does also state false evidence in favour of the ban by using the abbreviation AR to be Assault Rifle not its proper meaning of Armourlite, the firearms manufacture and certain specifications about the firearm that are also false statements including semi or fully automatic or rounds per minute.Perhaps if they included reports on other countries where this ban had been in place. Or whether they included a report on a more thorough process to obtain a firearm and gun control measures.Again any feedback would be appreciated.

Hi Rhett,You've picked a good article on an important topic. The article meets the requirements for A2 so you can continue to use it.Good start with your analysis too. With the argument: be much more specific. Is the author in support of these changes? If so, why, if not, why not?For the evidence: this would include any individuals or groups that are cited in the article. It would also include any timeline / historical discussion of changes in legislation and how this impacted on gun violence.