hot coffee 2

1. What opinion do you have on this topic of tort reform and frivolous lawsuits before watching the film? How did you form this opinion?

2. What is the thesis and who is the primary audience of the proposal the film makes?

3. How fairly does the film use definition/categorical arguments and ethical arguments to bolster its central proposal?

4. Identify any logical fallacies the film used or responded to.

5. How do the different arguments in the film use ethos (authority) to support their argument?

6. How are the arguments supported by VISUAL claims and evidence? How does this benefit from being a documentary instead of an essay?

7. Is the article below a fair criticism of Hot Coffee? Why or why not?

What is the most insightful criticism it offers of the film?
What is the most worthless thing it says about the film?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/docket/2011/06/30/cup-half-full-hot-coffee-serves-up-slanted-view-of-liability-system/

8. This article discusses the follow-up to the Jamie Leigh Jones vs KBR case
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/kbr-could-win-jamie-leigh-jones-rape-trial

What effect does the outcome of this case have on the argument of Hot Coffee? Why?

plegerisem will be checked.