I have chosen this article as it takes a constructive and analytical tone, providing a fair examination of both sides of the argument. The author's experience adds credibility, having been a member of two unions during her time as a high school teacher and university administrative worker.

While the source is a popular text, it remains credible as the argument is clear and concise, giving the reader a better understanding to make an informed decision. Although the author does not exclusively champion unions, her aim is to inform the reader of both the benefits and conflicts faced by workers.

One area of weakness is the statement "some argue that unions have led to the decline in the value of merit". It serves as an emotional hook but is quickly resolved to keep the reader engaged.

The argument against unions includes the slippery slope fallacy, stating, "if a union negotiates high wages for workers at a company, it may lead the company to charge higher prices for its offerings, which can make it less competitive with rivals". The use of ambiguous language weakens the argument.

The author uses personal experience and research studies, citing the Bureau of Labor Statistics to support the argument that unions are a viable solution to the systemic issues between businesses and workers.

Factors affecting the argument include changes in the political climate and catalysts of social and economic change, such as the pandemic.

Analysis 2 – The Role of Labor Unions in Creating Working Conditions That Promote Public Health.

By Jenn Hagedorn MPH, Claudia Paras, Howard Greenwich MPP, and Amy Hagopian PhD, MHA

This academic text focuses on mental and physical health as it relates to employment and work, highlighting the mistreatment of workers by large companies and businesses.

The article is highly credible, with professional authors utilizing specialized language. Contributors hold Masters of public health, healthcare administration, and public policy.

Data analysis and hypothesis testing are used, and the article acknowledges opportunities for bias or subjectivity.

The data analysis is focused, with controls in place to reduce bias. Supplementary data from interviews is acknowledged as potentially biased due to the individual experiences and perspectives brought.

The findings and analysis are detailed, providing an accurate account of information available. Ambiguity exists in the opening abstract section, which encapsulates the intent to discover rather than provide an opinion. There are no notable fallacies in the analysis of data, which is conducted critically with as little bias as possible.