In number 5, the author highlights the narrow relationship between women and pregnancy

and the big gap that exist in the knowledge among the masculine reproductive apparatus and
the feminine one, because of the complexity of this last one. “Woman’s reproductive
apparatus is vastly more complicated than man’s and still poorly understood” the writer says.
In this argumentation we can take to light, by opposition logical thinking, that men’s
reproductive apparatus is simpler and therefore better understood. We can of course
certificate that, because the work done on research on this area tells us that. So, in a Modus
Ponens structure, we can conclude that the men’s reproductive apparatus is better understood
than women.

On the same paragraph we can see another argumentation structure. The premise of it would
be “Organically, it has one mission – pregnancy – which women may spend a lifetime staving
off”. From this point we can appreciate a divergent argument, because at the end of the
paragraph the author says. “In the welcome pregnancy, this is a happy sacrifice” (Conclusion
one). “But in the unwanted one, initiated by rape or misadventure, it is a horror” (Conclusion
two). As we can see, in this case one premise implies more than one independent conclusions.
Further than this, there is no fallacy or other argumentative element in this paragraph

The 6th one has no explicit argumentative form, but it is a clear way to understand the
reasoning form of the text. It is a deductive reasoning, because there are arguments where the
conclusion infers necessarily in the premises. And, at least in this paragraph, it is explicit. In this
part, the author talks about how the menstruation had and nowadays have a lot of rituals and
mystery around it. This would be the premise and then he starts to put examples of it that
trying to convince the reader about his idea. Therefore, he uses the example of the mikveh in
the Ortodox Jewish rituals.

In the next stage there are no recognisable structures, but we can see the reasoning process.
Here it is told that feminism has not been deep on its analysis and that has taken away
importance to itself for being like that. The premises would be two than can come together.
“Feminism has been simplistic” and “It has painted itself into a corner”, from where we can say
“Feminism has been simplistic, then has painted itself into a corner”. And we can find the
conclusion of it some lines under this saying “Sexuality cannot always be understood by the
social models that feminism constantly relies on”. In other words, that feminism has to change.