Do a Rhetorical Analsysis of “Jeff Sessions Endless War on Marijuana” Article Using the Toulmin Method, dissect the discussion substance made in "Jeff Sessions Endless War on Marijuana" 1)What is the constructor's arrogation? Was the arrogation manifest? Was the arrogation arbitrary or was a qualifier used? 2)What are the constructor's reasons? (Remember the Reason(s) are linked to the arrogation by the vocable "because"). Are the reasons frail or hardy? 3)What sign does the constructor afford to living his arrogation and reasons? Is the sign frail or hardy? Too plenteous pathos/anecdotal sign? Not plenty logos/hard postulates? 4)What opposed-arguments did the constructor bestow? Did he tender a hardy rebuttal to the opposed discussion(s) or was the rebuttal frail? Were there opposed-arguments the constructor should keep considered? 5)What warrants (underlying assumptions) did you discover in the constructor’s discussion? Were the warrants recognized or unrecognized in the discussion? Are there problematic warrants, things the constructor postulates the he or she shouldn’t postulate? 6) What do you reach are the overall strengths and frailnesses of the discussion? In other vocables, are you infallible or not? Why? Answer each doubt individually NOT essay format.