In Thane Rosenbaum's article, "Should Neo- Nazis be Allowed Free Speech," the thesis is stated at the end of the essay which says, "Free speech should not stand in the way to common decency. No right should be so freely and recklessly exercised that it becomes an impediment to civil society, making it so that others are made to feel less free, their private space and peace invaded, their sensitivities cruelly trampled upon." This thesis is explicit because it is directly stated. He clearly states what he thinks free speech should be.

    In this essay, the author uses inductive reasoning. This can be seen as he states all his observations about free speech at the beginning paragraphs of his article. He clearly shows out his points which favors free speech and how countries set up Amendment Protections. He also shows countries and states that have conducted researches to detect the impact of physical and emotional pain. He states what research says say about pain medications treating emotional pain.

    In this article, many logical fallacies can e seen. Firstly, when the author says, "All of us know, however, and despite what we tell our children, names do, indeed , hurt" (Thane 166). This is a fallacy because he assumes what people tell their kids. He has no evidence to back what he says. Also, he says, "We impose speed limits on driving and regulate food and drugs because we know that the costs of not doing so can lead to accidents and harm" (Thane 166). He is wrong here bacause there are also other factors that causes accidents. This is a Faulty Analogy.

   Eric Posner's essay" Universities are Right to Crack Down on Speech and Behavior", the thesis is implicit. It is not directly stated. The thesis is seen as he says, "Universities have strengthened rules prohibiting offensive speech typically targeted at racial,ethnic, and sexual minorities;taken it upon themselves to issue "trigger warnings" to students when courses offer content that might upset them;banned sexual acts that fall short of rape under criminal law but are on the borderline of coercion; and limited due process protections of students accused of violating these rules"(Posner 183). This thesis still gives more room for confussion because it is still being debated as he further explains with examples.

   I think the author uses inductive reasoning. He does this by using several examples to support his thesis. When he says, "Scientific research confirms that brain development continues well into a person's 20s" (Posner 185). This gives more clue as he uses detailed examples to back his point. 

  Logical fallacy can be see when he states,"Most Liberals celebrate these developments, yet with a certain uneasiness" This statement has insufficient evidence to back it. It is a generalized statement. Also when he states that, "Teachers are dictators who carefully control what students say to one another"(Posner 183). This is untrue because not every teacher

I think the thesis of the article “On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes” by The American Association of University Professors is explicit. The authors clearly shared their theory on the restriction of freedom of speech in universities and colleges by stating the following: “An institution of higher learning fails to fulfill its mission if it asserts the power to proscribe ideas – and racial or ethnic slurs, sexist epithets, or homophobic insults almost always express ideas, however repugnant”(176).

Using deductive reasoning, the writers of this article made their major premise clear from the beginning.  After introducing the topic of Freedom of speech within universities and colleges, they move into the problems that this freedom cause (i.e. racial and sexist comments, etc.) to then stating the consequences that might happen if restricted, such as inability to voice opinions. The deductive reasoning used throughout this article is sound because all the premises made are true and backed up by actual facts. For instance, the premise that was made that “by proscribing any ideas, a university sets an example that profoundly disserves its academic mission” was proven to be true a few paragraphs later, when the writers concluded, “Free speech is not simply an aspect of the educational enterprise to be weighed against other desirable ends. It is the very precondition of the academic enterprise itself”.

Fallacy can be seen when they mention, "On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden"(172). i think not all ideas are correct and can be accepted. thus making this statement a fallacy.