According to the Washington Post:

According to the Washington Post: "More than three years after Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and hundreds of militiamen faced off with federal law enforcement officers who had repossessed Bundy's cattle, the 71-year-old is finally seeing his battle reach a courtroom.

The Bundy family has been at the center of a long-running dispute with federal authorities over the use of public lands to graze cattle, and Bundy gathered with militia members from around the country in April 2014 to directly challenge the federal government. Wearing camouflage and flak jackets and carrying semiautomatic rifles, they amassed in a dusty, washed-out canyon beneath the overpasses of Interstate 15, where two dozen federal officers had corralled Bundy's cattle after he refused to pay years of grazing fees."

Pick a position, for or against Bundy, and use the critical reasoning approach to close the logical gaps. So either connect evidence with conclusions in a better way to make conclusions stronger (Strengthen the evidence with new information) OR use the logical gaps to weaken an argument :

-Point out an obvious reason for the illogical conclusion 

-Enumerate a wrong generalization 

-Point out improper comparisons between two scenarios that the author assumed