THE TASK IS TO DO A DETAILED ANALYSIS ON THE ATTACHED ARTICLE (RAP AND MORAL CHARACTER) FOLLOWING THE FORMAT SPECIFIED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS FILE AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS POWERPOINT. 

THE STEPS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

 Step 1. Read, annotate, and clarify the passage. Identify purpose and conclusion, annotate the passage, clarify key concepts and claims. This part draws in large part on the first module of the course. 

Step 2. Portray the basic argument structure: Write a short synopsis. Identify main argument, identify sub-arguments, supply missing premises, represent the entire argument in an arrow diagram. 

Step 3. Assess the argument. This is the main part of the assignment—it draws on the second and the third module of the course. REPRESENT THE ARGUMENT IN AN ARROW DIAGRAM. Once the argument represented in an arrow diagram, identify the deductive arguments and check their validity, identify the inductive or abductive arguments and check their strength, identify any fallacies. Challenge questionable claims, concepts, or conclusions. 

Step 4. Assess the strength of the argument overall. Present your analysis in a 1-2 page discussion at the end of the assignment. 

***********************************************************************************************************************

Please find all the relevant documents attached; sample article(GUN REGISTRY) and analysis, the assigned article to be analyzed(RAP AND MORAL CHARACTER), the instructions/ guide documents.

Instructionsfor the Final Assignment

Analysis of Article: Rap and Moral Character

For the final assignment, follow the steps explained in the lectures for Extended

Argument Analysis. See the examples of analysis done in class and follow the

instruction covered in class. All of the steps of the analysis are part of the

assignment. The extended analysis involves the following basic steps (for details

and examples, see class lectures):

Step 1. Read, annotate, and clarify the passage. Identify purpose and

conclusion, annotate the passage, clarify key concepts and claims, write a

short synopsis. This par draws in large part on the first module of the

course.

Step 2. Portray the basic argument structure (Identify main argument,

identify sub-arguments, supply missing premises, represent the entire

argument in an arrow diagram)

Step 3. Assess the argument. This is the main part of the assignment—it

draws on the second and the third module of the course. Once the

argument represented in an arrow diagram, identify the deductive

arguments and check their validity, identify the inductive or abductive

arguments and check their strength, identify any fallacies. Challenge

questionable claims, concepts, or conclusions.

Step 4. Assess the strength of the argument overall. Present your analysis in

a 1-2 page discussion at the end of the assignment.

Rap and Moral Character

Various critics have railed against the alleged harms of rap music.

It is misogynistic and promotes violence (especially toward women),

crass materialism, and street crime. Virtually all of the arguments

about rap focus on its alleged effects—harmful or, occasionally,

beneficial. Yet such arguments are difficult to prove. While not

suggesting we abandon approaches like this, the focus on effects

ignores another important moral argument—rap music is both a

sign of and contributes to a form of corruption of moral character.

Morality is not simply about actions, consequences, and effects

on others. It is also about oneself and the development of one’s own

character. Being self-centred, cowardly, or weak-willed may not

harm others, but we do judge such things in terms of morality. Who

we are and the motives for our actions are important. Two people

may do the same thing but for different reasons. We, justifiably,

judge them differently. Two nephews may be attentive to their

elderly aunt, taking her places, buying groceries, seeing to her

welfare. If we judged them solely in terms of the consequences of

their actions, there would be no difference between them. But

maybe one nephew has no love for his aunt and helps her solely out

of hope that he will benefit in her will. The other maybe helps her

because he loves her and is concerned about her well-being. We

judge their actions differently because of intent. Even the legal

system considers motive and character. A person who pushes a

man in front of a moving bus with the intent of killing him is judged

differently than one who stumbles and pushes the man accidentally.

Character is important in morally assessing ourselves and others.

Rap both indicates and contributes to a corrupt personal character.

Rap lyrics (and accompanying videos) are full of images of “hos”

and pimps, guns, violence, the killing of cops, dissing and

being dissed, dominance, and drug dealing. It is rife with jewellery

-wearing thugs promoting crass materialism and hostile sexual

stereotyping. Women are subjected to the crudest form of sexual

subjugation—as merely the sexual playthings of violent men—to be

used, pimped out, and discarded.

The imagery is unrelenting. And it glorifies a world of misogyny,

where crass materialism by any means, where violence as a primary

means of settling disagreements, and where illegal activity—drug

dealing, stealing, killing cops—are considered normal and desirable.

People who choose to listen to and watch such material on a

regular basis are saying something about their own moral character,

about what they value, about who they are. They are endorsing the

behaviours the genre exemplifies. Seeking out such material is like

seeking out and choosing to watch portrayals of atrocities, such as

rapes, executions, and real-life violence, all of which are available in

our culture and on the Internet.

One could argue that people might listen to rap only for the music

and not pay attention to the lyrics. In response, consider the

following parallel. Imagine that a genre of music emerged that had

interesting music but whose lyrics and accompanying videos were

entirely devoted to the denigration of a particular race and the

superiority of another. I doubt that we would believe that self-described

nonracist people listened only for the artistry of the music and ignored

the lyrics. But even if this was the case, we would likely still find a

moral failing in that. Their failure to see and condemn the message

of the lyrics would itself be a moral failing. Finally, even if

some individuals failed to recognize the message of the lyrics, that

cannot be true of everyone who listens to the material. If it was

simply the music and not the lyrics that was important, other lyrics

would develop. This singular vision would not be as pervasive in the

genre. Other genres are not as unrelenting and uniform in their

vision of the world.

The state cannot prevent us from corrupting our character, nor

should it. However, that does not prevent me, as an individual, from

deploring the corruption of character in rap. We make a decision

when we choose to listen to music. The choice to persistently listen

to a form of music that celebrates thugs, violence, drug dealing,

crass materialism, and the denigration of women shows a

corruption of character and deserves moral censure.

Instructions for the Final Assignment
Analysis of Article: Rap and Moral Character

For the final assignment, follow the steps explained in the lectures for Extended
Argument Analysis. See the examples of analysis done in class and follow the
instruction covered in class. All of the steps of the analysis are part of the
assignment. The extended analysis involves the following basic steps (for details
and examples, see class lectures):

Step 1. Read, annotate, and clarify the passage. Identify purpose and conclusion,
annotate the passage, clarify key concepts and claims. This par draws in large part
on the first module of the course.

Step 2. Portray the basic argument structure: Write a short synopsis. Identify
main argument, identify sub-arguments, supply missing premises, represent the
entire argument in an arrow diagram.

Step 3. Assess the argument. This is the main part of the assignment—it draws on
the second and the third module of the course. Once the argument represented
in an arrow diagram, identify the deductive arguments and check their validity,
identify the inductive or abductive arguments and check their strength, identify
any fallacies. Challenge questionable claims, concepts, or conclusions.

Step 4. Assess the strength of the argument overall. Present your analysis in a 1-2

page discussion at the end of the assignment.

Article: Gun Registry

*

The government’s gun registration program has failed. It did not stop the Dawson College shooting nor the two previous rampages in Montreal. All three crimes were committed by individuals using legally acquired weapons. More important, recent statistics show that while the incidence of crime—homicides, robbery—involving guns has decreased over the past ten years in the United States, it has increased in Canada. In the United States, not only is there no gun registry, but citizens are actually being encouraged to carry guns. Twenty-six states have recently passed laws allowing citizens to carry handguns and have made it easier for them to get handgun licences.
Not only has the gun registry program failed; it has had the effect of a steamroller crushing a butterfly. The gun registry program has two main functions: (1) to decrease the use of guns for criminal activity, and (2) to reduce the number of domestic murders because of easy access to guns. The registry has had no effect on either of these.
Most crimes are committed with unregistered and illegal handguns, often either stolen from individuals who have registered their guns or with guns illegally imported from the United States. A gun registry doesn’t address that problem. Criminals will still get guns; law-abiding citizens won’t. In fact, a gun registry can actually facilitate criminals getting guns because it tells the criminals who has the guns and from where they can be stolen.
The gun registry, by itself, does not reduce the number of domestic murders. The number is, first of all, already low. And if someone is going to kill a spouse or other family member, that person will use whatever is available. If guns aren’t available, he or she will use knives or clubs. Registering handguns will not change that.
Nor will it stop the killing of police officers. Few police officers in Canada are killed with guns. And when they have been, the guns have either been legally acquired, which the gun registry does nothing to prevent, or they have been illegal, which the gun registry also does nothing to prevent.
The gun registry is simply not effective. It should be eliminated.

*

“Reasoning About Morality and Values”

Petrenko Anton, PhD

E-Mail: petrenko@yorku.ca

1

This lecture will introduce students to categories of argument, deductive argument forms and validity, and portraying argument structure using arrow diagrams and standard form.
Lecture Objectives
Deductive and non-deductive arguments
Valid and Sound deductive argument
Valid argument forms

Paraphrasing vs. Summary

Diagramming Argument Structure: Arrow Diagrams

Diagramming Argument Structure: Standard Form

2

Categories of Arguments
All arguments fall into two main categories: Deductively valid arguments and non-deductively valid arguments. The later subdivides into inductively strong and abductively strong argument.
Deductively valid
(demonstratively valid)
Non-Deductively valid
(non-demonstratively valid)
Abductively Strong
Inductively Strong

Deductively Valid Argument

What is a deductively valid argument?
Definition:
A deductively valid argument is an argument that has the following property, if its premises are true, its conclusion must be true.
Deductive arguments are intended to provide conclusive (certain and final) support for its conclusion. Deductive arguments can be valid and invalid.
Everyone who is a human being has three heads
Socrates is a human being
Socrates has three heads
Example:

Note!
To be valid, the deductive argument DOES NOT HAVE TO BE TRUE OR HAVE TRUE PREMISES!
To be valid, the conclusion of the argument just must follow necessarily from premises.
Assume them to be true for a second, does the conclusion follow necessarily? Then its valid!

Deductive Arguments
If Sam is bald, then Jim is late
Sam is bald
Jim is late
If apples grow on trees, then sky is falling
If sky is falling, then seas are rising
If apples grow on trees, then seas are rising
If Socrates is human, then he is mortal
Socrates is not mortal
Socrates is not human
All dogs hate cats
All cats hate mice
All dogs hate mice
All dogs hate cats
Fluffy is a dog
Fluffy hates cats

If apples are round, then pears are pear-shaped
This pear is pear-shaped
All apples are round

Which ones are valid?

Deductive Arguments
Definition:
A deductively valid argument with all true premises is said to be a sound argument.

But what makes a deductive argument a good argument.

A deductive argument is good when it is both valid and all its premises are in fact true. Such arguments are called sound!
Sound arguments always have true conclusions! These are the best kind of arguments one can have.

Deductive Arguments
If present is the 21st century, then present is not antiquity
Present is the 21st century
Present is not antiquity
If apples grow on trees, then sky is falling
If sky is falling, then seas are rising
If apples grow on trees, then seas are rising
If Socrates is human, then he is mortal
Socrates is not mortal
Socrates is not human
All dogs hate cats
Fluffy is a dog
Fluffy hates cats
If you got an A, you passed the course
You got an A
You passed the course

Which ones are sound?

Valid Deductive Argument Forms
If Sam is bald, then Jim is late
Sam is bald
Jim is late

You might have noticed that the arguments that are valid have some similar general patterns. These are called valid argument forms.
Any argument that has the same valid form will be always valid (although it might not be sound)
If p, then q
p
q
If Socrates is human, then he is mortal Socrates is human
Socrates is mortal
This argument form is called Modus Ponens
If p, then q
Not q
Not p
This argument form is called Modus Tollens
If Sam is bald, then Jim is late
Jim is not late
Sam is not bald

Valid Deductive Argument Forms
If Sam is bald, then Jim is late
If Jim is late, then John is happy
If Sam is bald, then John is happy
If p, then q
If q then r
If p then r
If you As the course, your mom will be glad
If you mom is glad, your life is happy
If you As the course, your life is happy
This argument form is called Hypothetical Syllogism
Either p or q
Not q
p
This is called Disjunctive Syllogism
Either you passed, or you are sad
You are not sad
You passed
Either we will turn up heat or we will freeze
We will not freeze
We will turn up heat
These are only some of a good number of valid argument forms (schema)

Deductive Arguments
If Sam is bald, then Jim is late
Sam is bald
Jim is late
If apples grow on trees, then sky is falling
Sky is not falling
Apples don’t grow on trees
If Socrates is human, then he is mortal
Socrates is not mortal
Socrates is not human
If sun is shining, then life is great
Sun is shining
Life is great
Either dogs hate cats or love them
Dogs don’t love cats
Dogs hate cats

Which argument schemas are used?
If apples grow on trees, then sky is falling
If sky is falling, then seas are rising
If apples grow on trees, then seas are rising
Modus Ponens
Disjunctive Syllogism
Modus Ponens
Modus Tollens
Modus Tollens
Hypothetical Syllogism

Invalid Deductive Argument Forms
If Carla is late, then Jim is sad
Jim is sad
Carla is late

This argument form is called affirming the consequent (second premise affirms the consequent). It is always invalid
If p, then q
q
p
If p, then q
q
p
If Carla is late, then Jim is sad
Carla is not late
Jim is not sad
If p, then q
Not p
Not q
This argument form is denying the antecedent (second premise denies the antecedent). It is always invalid
If Carla is late, Jim will be sad. But he might be sad also for other reasons (so premises can be true but conclusion false—Carla not late)
There are some argument patterns that are always invalid (although might appear valid)
If Carla is late, Jim will be sad. But this also does not mean that he won’t be sad if she shows up on time. All the argument says is that if she does not, he will for sure be sad.
Memorize: affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent is invalid!

So, now that we have some idea of how some premises can be linked together in deductive arguments, we can analyze passages to determine the argument structure
Diagramming Arguments

12

Analyzing Long Passages
When you are evaluating longer arguments, there are a number of obstacles:
1. Only a small part might contain claims, premises, or conclusions (most will be descriptions, narrative, illustrations)
2. The premises and conclusions might be implicit.
3. Many long works contain few or no arguments at all.

1. Read the passage and circle inference indicators
2. Examine each sentence for its role in the passage
(premise, conclusion, background, illustration, digression, definition)
3. Identify the main point of the passage
4. Check conclusion against the rest of the passage. How do the other claims fit with this claim?
5. Identify the structure of the argument by relating reasons to conclusion
6. If there are unclear, ambiguous, or vague words central to the passage, clarify them.

Identifying Relevant to the Argument Claims

(1) Background information about the controversy

[ The debate over the gay marriage has become particularly heated over the last past two years. ] [ By gay marriage, I mean the right of same-sex couples to enter into a legal union that give them the rights normally shared by heterosexual couples who marry. ] [ Gay men and women have demanded they be given the legal right to marry. ] [ Many conservatives have rejected the idea on the grounds it will undermine the sanctity of marriage. ] [ I contend we should allow gay marriage] because [ if we do not we will be denying a significant segment of the population the basic rights shared by the rest of the population. ]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(2) Defines key term (gay marriage)
(3) Presents a position of one of the parties in the debate
(4) Presents a contrary position in the debate
(5) Presents controversial claim (conclusion)
(6) Presents reason for the truth of the controversial claim (premise)

Diagramming Argument Structure: Arrow Diagrams
Barack Obama has great ideas for preserving the natural environment. You bet he does! Therefore Obama being elected is good for Canada.”
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
Step 4:
Read the passage and circle any premise or conclusion indicator words.
[2]
[1]
[3]
Number all the claims in the passage in the sequential order.
Examine each sentence for its role in the passage
(premise, conclusion, background, illustration, digression, definition)
Cross out extraneous (redundant) claims in the passage which are neither premises nor conclusions.
Step 5:
Draw a diagram with the conclusion at the bottom and premises at the top. Draw arrows from premises to the conclusions they support.
3
1

Diagramming Argument Structure: Arrow Diagrams
What do you think of shopping at the Bay? I’ll tell you! They’ve got great prices, and they’ve got a good selection of men’s clothes. So, the Bay is a great place to shop!”
[2]
[1]
[4]
[5]
4
3
5
Both premises 2 and 3 give independent reason to believe the conclusion is true. If one turns out to be false, the other can still support the conclusion.
This is called a convergent argument (premises are independent).
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
Step 4:
Read the passage and circle any premise or conclusion indicator words.
Number all the claims in the passage in the sequential order.
Cross out extraneous (redundant) claims in the passage which are neither premises nor conclusions.
Step 5:
Draw a diagram with the conclusion at the bottom and premises at the top. Draw arrows from premises to the conclusions they support.
Examine each sentence for its role in the passage (premise, conclusion, background, illustration, digression, definition)

[3]

Diagramming Argument Structure: Arrow Diagrams
If Marla buys a house in the suburbs, she will be happier and healthier. She is buying a house in the suburbs. So, she will be happier and healthier.
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
Step 4:
Read the passage and circle any premise or conclusion indicator words.
Number all the claims in the passage in the sequential order.
Cross out extraneous (redundant) claims in the passage which are neither premises nor conclusions.
Step 5:
Draw a diagram with the conclusion at the bottom and premises at the top. Draw arrows from premises to the conclusions they support.
[1]
2
1
3
[2]
[3]
Premises 1 and 2 are called linked premises (or dependent premises).
Linked premises support the conclusion together (can’t do it without each other), and must be considered together.
Examine each sentence for its role in the passage
(premise, conclusion, background, illustration, digression, definition)

Diagramming Argument Structure: Arrow Diagrams
There is no question in my mind. I therefore maintain that Colonel Mustard is the murderer. Because if he did it, he would probably have bloodstains on the sleeve of his shirt. The bloodstains are tiny, but they are there. Any observant person can see them. Also, the murder weapon was within his reach before the crime. And since of all the people in the house he alone does not have an alibi, he must be the killer.
[2]
[1]
[3]
[4]
3
6
4
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
7
8
Premises 3 and 4 are linked premises (or dependent premises).
Linked premises support the conclusion together (can’t do it without each other), and must be considered together.
The other two premises (6 and 7) provide independent support to the conclusion. If one is false, the other can still provide support.

Diagramming Argument Structure: Arrow Diagrams
The famous trial lawyer Clarence Darrow (1857-1938) made a name for himself by using the “determinism defense” to get his client acquitted of serious crimes. The crux of his argument is that humans are not really responsible for what they do because they cannot choose freely—they are determined or predestined by nature (or God) to be the way they are. They have no free will. But Darrow is wrong about human free will for two reasons. First, in our moral life, our common-sense experience suggests that sometimes we are free to make moral decisions. We should not abandon what common-sense tells us without good reason, and Darrow did not give a good reason. Second, Darrow’s determinism is not confirmed by science, as he claims—it actually conflicts with science. Modern science says there are many things (at the subatomic level) that are not determined at all. They just happen.
5
8
6
9
4
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
7
Sometimes premises lead to a conclusion that in turn functions as a premise for another conclusion. We call such a premise an intermediate conclusion. Premise 8 is intermediate conclusion.
Premises 4, 5, and 6 are linked premises. They support the conclusion together.

Diagramming Argument Structure: Arrow Diagrams
Most philosophers are nerds, and Chris is a philosopher. Therefore, Chris is probably a nerd. Therefore, Chris probably has poor social skills, because most nerds have poor social skills.
4
1
3
5
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
2
The only valid reasons for dishonorably discharging someone from Canadian Armed Forces are health problems and violations of military regulations. So, if Amal says he was dishonorably discharged for simply being gay, he is either lying or he is mistaken. He is not lying. So, he is mistaken.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
1
2
3
4
Canadian Armed Forces
Philosopher nerds

Diagramming Argument Structure: Arrow Diagrams
If an individual in a coma is no longer a person, then giving him a drag to kill him is not a murder. Such an individual is in fact not a person.
Therefore, giving him the drug is not a murder.
1
3
2
“Grow accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us, since every good and evil lie in sensation. However, death is the depravation of sensation. Therefore… death is nothing to us.”
Coma
[1]
[2]
[3]
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
2
4
3
Death
I think City Council should pass a by-law prohibiting smoking in all restaurants and bars. It won’t be a popular move, but its clearly the best thing from a public-health point of view. By passing such a by-law, City Council would be setting a good example and reminding everyone what a serious risk smoking poses
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
1
3
4

Diagramming Argument Structure: Arrow Diagrams
There are at least two main views regarding the morality of war. Pacifism is the view that no war is ever justified because it involves the taking of human life. Just-war theory is the view that some wars are justified for various reasons—mostly because they help prevent greater evils (massacres, ethnic cleansing, tyranny) or because they are means of self-defence. I think our own moral sense tells us that occasionally (as during WWII) violence is morally justified. It would be hard for anyone to deny that a war to prevent something like a Holocaust is morally right. Just-war theory is correct ((Implied conclusion)
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
5
4
[6]
6

Diagramming Argument Structure: Standard Form
[ (1) In all wars there is the chance innocent people will be killed], and [ (2) we should never kill innocent people, even for a good cause]. So, [ (3) we should not participate in this war.]
1 In all wars there is the chance that innocent people will be killed.
2 We should never kill innocent people.
 3 We should not participate in this war.
1
3
2
[(1) Some people justify deception as simply a part of good business practice]. However, [(2) good business practice is built upon trust]. And [(3) trust is undermined by deception]. So, [(4) good business practice should not be built upon deception].
2 Good business practice is built upon trust.
3 And trust is undermined by deception.
 4 Good business practice should not be built upon deception.
2
4
3

Diagramming Argument Structure: Standard Form
3
2
5

(1) Businesses should work to improve the labour conditions of their workers in developing countries. (2) This will improve their socioeconomic conditions. (3) Some people argue that to prevent tragedies like the one that happened in Bangladesh, the companies should withdraw from the host country. (4) But withdrawing from the host country will produce much greater suffering in the long run due to slower economic development and unemployment. (5) Therefore, business should stay and improve conditions.
4
Squiggly arrows are used to represent objections in more complex argument structures. In the example given, statement (3) is an objection to the conclusion that business should stay in the host country, so a squiggly arrow connects it to the conclusion (objections could also connect to the premises within the argument).
The author defends the conclusion by presenting a counter-objection (4) to the original objection (3).

Step

One: Read, Annotate, and Clarify Your Passage

1.1 Annotation (underline topic sentences, circle and square as appropriate—

not shown here)

The government’s gun registration program has failed. It did

not stop the Dawson College shooting nor the two previous

rampages in Montreal. All three crimes were committed by

individuals using legally acquired weapons. More important,

recent statistics show that while the incidence of crime—

homicides, robbery—involving guns has decreased over the

past ten years in the United States, it has increased in Canada.

In the United States, not only is there no gun registry, but

citizens are actually being encouraged to carry guns. Twenty-

six states have recently passed laws allowing citizens to carry

handguns and have made it easier for them to get handgun

licences.

Not only has the gun registry program failed; it has had

the effect of a steamroller crushing a butterfly. The gun

registry program has two main functions: (1) to decrease the

use of guns for criminal activity, and (2) to reduce the number

of domestic murders because of easy access to guns. The

registry has had no effect on either of these.

Most crimes are committed with unregistered and illegal

handguns, often either stolen from individuals who have

registered their guns or with guns illegally imported from the

United States. A gun registry doesn’t address that problem.

Criminals will still get guns; law-abiding citizens won’t. In fact,

a gun registry can actually facilitate criminals getting guns

because it tells the criminals who has the guns and from where

they can be stolen.

Gun registry (GR) failed. a) It

did not stop crimes done with

legal guns (Montreal); b) it did

not prevent increase in crime

(US vs. Canada).

Moreover: GR failed in two

main functions: 1) decrease

use of guns in crime, 2)

reduce murders due to easy

access to guns.

Most crimes are done with

illegal guns (stolen or

smuggled). GR does not

address this (worse: tells

criminals where to steal guns.)

The gun registry, by itself, does not reduce the number

of domestic murders. The number is, first of all, already low.

And if someone is going to kill a spouse or other family

member, that person will use whatever is available. If guns

aren’t available, he or she will use knives or clubs. Registering

handguns will not change that.

Nor will it stop the killing of police officers. Few police

officers in Canada are killed with guns. And when they have

been, the guns have either been legally acquired, which the

gun registry does nothing to prevent, or they have been illegal,

which the gun registry also does nothing to prevent.

The gun registry is simply not effective. It should be

eliminated.

1.2 Statement of Topic and Position

Topic: Gun Registry

Issue: Should guns registry be eliminated?

Position: GR is ineffective; it should be eliminated.

1.3 Clarification Notes

1) “It did not stop the Dawson College shooting nor the two previous

rampages in Montreal.” Note: This includes a presupposition that gun

registry is supposed to eliminate all crimes rather than decrease

them.

This

is questionable.

2) “(2) to reduce the number of domestic murders because of easy access to

guns.” Note: The word “domestic” is semantically ambiguous : “done at

home” or “within the country”?

3) “Most crimes are committed with unregistered and illegal handguns, often

either stolen. Note: Vague–how often is “often”? How many is most (total

number)?

GR does not reduce domestic

murders:1) murders are low;

2) people who want to kill

family, will find the weapons.

GR will not stop killing of

police: 1) few are killed with

guns; 2) they were either

legal or stolen.

C: GR should be eliminated

4) “Criminals will still get guns; law-abiding citizens won’t.” Note: There seem

to be an implied normative claim that it is a bad thing if law-abiding citizens

don’t get guns. The claim is neither stated nor defended anywhere.

5) “The number is, first of all, already low.” Note: Vague—how low is “low”?

6) “Few police officers in Canada are killed with guns. “ Note: Vague—how

few is “few”?

(continue with the notes as appropriate….)

1.4 Synopsis

“Gun registry should be eliminated because it failed and it is ineffective in its

function. First, it failed because it does not prevent crime with legal guns or have

effect on crime rate. Second, it is ineffective in reducing guns for use in crime

because often such guns are acquired illegally, which it does not address. And it is

ineffective in reducing domestic murders because such people will always find

other weapons. Finally, it has no effect on crimes against the police since they are

done either with legal guns or illegal guns.

Step Two: Portray The Basic Argument Structure

2.1 Argument Structure

2.2 Argument Structure (arrow diagram)

Step 3: Assess the Arguments

3.1 Argument Analysis: Failure Argument

The argument line that argues that GR failed (2) has two

independent arguments that support it (3 and 5).

Summarise: Let’s consider premise 3 first: It claims that GR

failed because it failed to prevent crimes with legal weapons.

And it supports this by pointing out to three cases of rampages

with legal guns.

4. GR failed to prevent three rampages with legal gun

3. GR fails to prevent crimes with legal guns

Assess strength: This argument is an inductive generalization. The argument is

weak because its sample is very small (three crimes); it is not representative

(rampages and college shootings in Montreal); and observations are not

systematic.

Assess Claims: Are the claims themselves true? Was GR functioning at the time of

the rampages? Were they legal guns? No information is provided (have to

assume).

Challenge Claims: Does the argument make a presupposition that GR must

prevent all crimes with legal guns? GR is supposed to reduce crimes, not eliminate

them.

The argument line that argues that GR failed (2) has two

independent arguments that support it (3 and 5). Now, let’s

consider premise 5:

Summarise: The argument claims that GR fails by implying that

it has no effect on the crime rate. It is supported by the

statistics for Canada and US showing that US without registry

has decrease in crimes while Canada has an increase.

7. US has no registry, but crime is decreasing.

6. Canada has registry, but crime is increasing

5. GR has no effect on crime rate (implied).

Assess strength: This is a causal argument, denying a causal connection. The

argument is weak because it fails to take into account other factors that

contribute to crime rates. It is possible that crime rate would be much higher in

Canada without GR and much lower in US with GR. This would be strong if other

variables were controlled.

Assess Claims: Are the claims themselves true? Was GR in Canada functioning

during periods cited? We do not have enough information to assess the truth.

Challenge Claims: No claims to challenge here.

The Failure Argument is quite weak. It includes a weak

inductive generalization and a weak causal argument.

We have little information to check the truth of the

claims themselves. We have to rely on the author to

provide true claims, but without references to reliable

sources makes the case weaker.

3.2 Argument Analysis: Inefficiency Argument

The argument line that GR is ineffective basically

defines what effectiveness is and argues that GR

fails to live up to these conditions.

The argument line includes a number of deductive

arguments at the beginning and some inductive

arguments at the top.

Let’s look at the first step in the argument sub-

conclusion 8.

Summarise: The argument claims that GR is

ineffective because it does not decrease guns for

use in crimes and reduce domestic murders. The

argument is deductive (Modus ponens) but we

can translate it into categorical logic.

10. All GR are things that don’t reduce domestic

murders or guns …

11. All things that don’t reduce domestic murders

or guns are ineffective things

8. All GR are ineffective things.

Assess validity/strength: This deductive argument

is valid (note: for simplicity, A propositions were

used). The question is whether it is sound. Are the

claims true?

Assess Claims: We have to trust the author that

registry has two functions which define whether it

is effective (Pr. 11) The main question is whether

10 is true, for this we have to check how this

premise is supported.

How is premise 10 supported?

Premise 10 is basically a joining of two conclusions

(premises 12 and 15). We could check the validity

of joining, but this is not necessary (this is

conjunction inference in propositional logic).

Instead, lets look at the argument for premise 12.

Summarise: The argument claims that GR does

not decrease guns for use in crimes because most

crimes are made with stolen or smuggled guns

and GR does not prevent that.

13. Most crimes use stolen or smuggled guns

14. GR does not prevent stealing or smuggling of guns

12. GR does not decrease guns for use in crimes

Assess validity/strength: This argument can be put into a categorical form if we

add extra implied premises. But even now it is clear that it is invalid (provide a

Venn Diagram to illustrate this—not shown here). Premise 13 says that only some

crimes are done with stolen guns. So, even if GR did not prevent illegal guns, it

does not follow that it does not decrease availability of legal guns for use in

crimes. But this is what the conclusion states. Invalid.

Assess Claims: The claim 13 is too vague (how many are most)? Furthermore, no

support is given for premise 14. By reducing guns in general and guns in unreliable

hands, GR might reduce the number of guns that are likely to be stolen.

Premise 10 is supported with two premises, 12 and 15.

We have determined that premise 12, if stated in

unqualified form (i.e. GR does not reduce any guns for

crimes) is false. So, the argument fails, but we should

also look at premise 15.

Summarise: The argument claims that GR does not

reduce domestic murders because they are already low

and people will always find a weapon of opportunity.

16. Domestic murders are low

17. People who want to kill family, will find the weapons

15. GR does not reduce domestic murders

Assess validity/strength: This is an inductive argument (premises are not linked).

The basis for drawing the conclusion is unclear. Premise 16 appears irrelevant.

Premise 17 is a general unsupported claim (empirical prediction). The argument is

very weak.

Assess/Challenge Claims: Claim 16 is too vague and irrelevant to the conclusion—

the fact that domestic crimes are low does not mean they can’t or should not be

reduced. No evidence (systematic or anecdotal) is cited in support of premise17:

even is some people would find weapons of opportunity, without easily available

guns some might not. (Hasty Generalization).

Overall, the Inefficiency Argument is weak.

The main problems are related to the premises 12

and 15, which are supposed to lead to the

conclusion (10) that GR does not reduce guns

available for crimes or reduce domestic murders.

Claim 12 is derived from an invalid argument—

even if GR does not reduce illegal guns, it does not

mean it can’t prevent crimes with legal guns.

Moreover, no evidence is given to show that GR

does not reduce availability of guns for theft.

Claim 15 is largely unsupported. The main problem is with premise 17. It appears

to be a hasty generalization without clear sample. Claim 16 is irrelevant.

3.3 Argument Analysis: Overall Argument

The overall argument is weak. The argument that GR fails is based on hasty

generalization and weak causal argument. The argument that GR is ineffective is

based on an invalid argument and on another hasty generalization.

Finally, even if the arguments were strong, the conclusion that guns registry

should be eliminated does not follow. No argument had been provided to show

that it can’t be fixed (Challenging claim 9: Ineffective or failed programs should be

eliminated)

4.0 Step Four: Present Your Analysis

Write a page or page and a half summary of the article and your conclusions about its strength (relying

on results from step 3)

“Reasoning About Social Issues”

Petrenko Anton, PhD
Hours: By appointment (Monday 11:30-12:30)
E-Mail: petrenko@yorku.ca
AP/MODR1730 D

*

In this lecture, the student will learn how to bring together in an analysis of an extended argument many of the ideas and skills learned in this course. Students will learn how to read actively, analyze and clarify the passage, asses the strength of its arguments, and present a written critique.
Lecture Objectives
Analyze and portray basic logical structure
Clarify meaning of key terms and phrases
Assess specific argument for soundness and cogency
Assess overall acceptability of the passage
Develop a written critique

*

Basic Steps in Analysis
Read, annotate, and clarify the passage

Step 1:
Portray the basic argument structure
Step 2:
Assess the
arguments
Step 3:
Present your analysis

Step 4:
Identify purpose and conclusion
Annotate passage
Clarify key concepts and claims

Identify main argument
Identify sub-arguments
Supply missing premises

Assess specific arguments (for each)
a) Assess validity for deductive arg.
b) Assess strength for inductive arg.
c) Assess strength for abductive arg.
e) Identify fallacies
Assess truth of claims
a) empirical; conceptual; normative
b) challenge presupposition
c) provide counterexamples
Assess overall argument (together)
Put together an overall presentation
Results:
1.1 Annotation (1-2 pages)
1.2 Statement of topic; issue; position
1.3 Notes (clarification)
1.4 Conceptual analysis (a page)
1.5 Synopsis

Results (1-2 pages):
2.1 Arrow diagram of the argument
missing premises identified
2.2 Diagram with arg. lines named
Results:
3.1 Arg. analysis includes (1-4 pages). For each sub-argument include:
a) Tr. and Venn test if deduct. arg.
b) Assessment if inductive arg.
c) Assessment if abductive arg.
d) Asses truth of claims
e) Challenges claims
Results:
1-2 Page discussion of the passage with presentation of your assessment in your own words (no diagrams or venns)

*

The government’s gun registration program has failed. It did not stop the Dawson College shooting nor the two previous rampages in Montreal. All three crimes were committed by individuals using legally acquired weapons. More important, recent statistics show that while the incidence of crime—homicides, robbery—involving guns has decreased over the past ten years in the United States, it has increased in Canada. In the United States, not only is there no gun registry, but citizens are actually being encouraged to carry guns. Twenty-six states have recently passed laws allowing citizens to carry handguns and have made it easier for them to get handgun licences.
Not only has the gun registry program failed; it has had the effect of a steamroller crushing a butterfly. The gun registry program has two main functions: (1) to decrease the use of guns for criminal activity, and (2) to reduce the number of domestic murders because of easy access to guns. The registry has had no effect on either of these.
Most crimes are committed with unregistered and illegal handguns, often either stolen from individuals who have registered their guns or with guns illegally imported from the United States. A gun registry doesn’t address that problem. Criminals will still get guns; law-abiding citizens won’t. In fact, a gun registry can actually facilitate criminals getting guns because it tells the criminals who has the guns and from where they can be stolen.
The gun registry, by itself, does not reduce the number of domestic murders. The number is, first of all, already low. And if someone is going to kill a spouse or other family member, that person will use whatever is available. If guns aren’t available, he or she will use knives or clubs. Registering handguns will not change that.
Nor will it stop the killing of police officers. Few police officers in Canada are killed with guns. And when they have been, the guns have either been legally acquired, which the gun registry does nothing to prevent, or they have been illegal, which the gun registry also does nothing to prevent.
The gun registry is simply not effective. It should be eliminated.
Gun registry (GR) failed. a) It did not stop crimes done with legal guns (Montreal); b) it did not prevent increase in crime (US vs. Canada).
Moreover: GR failed in two main functions: 1) decrease use of guns in crime, 2) reduce murders due to easy access to guns.
Most crimes are done with illegal guns (stolen or smuggled). GR does not address this (worse: tells criminals where to steal guns.)

GR does not reduce domestic murders:1) murders are low; 2) people who want to kill family, will find the weapons.
GR will not stop killing of police: 1) few are killed with guns; 2) they were either legal or stolen.
C: GR should be eliminated

1.1 Annotation

*

1.3 Clarification Notes
“It did not stop the Dawson College shooting nor the two previous rampages in Montreal.” Note: This includes a presupposition that gun registry is supposed to eliminate all crimes rather than decrease them. This is questionable.
4) “Criminals will still get guns; law-abiding citizens won’t.” Note: There seem to be an implied normative claim that it is a bad thing if law-abiding citizens don’t get guns. The claim is neither stated nor defended anywhere.
5) “The number is, first of all, already low.” Note: Vague—how low is “low”?
6) “Few police officers in Canada are killed with guns. “ Note: Vague—how few is “few”?
Topic: Gun Registry
Issue: Should guns registry be eliminated?
Position: GR is ineffective; it should be eliminated.
1.2 Statement of Topic and Position
“(2) to reduce the number of domestic murders because of easy access to guns.”
Note: The word “domestic” is semantically ambiguous : “done at home” or “within
the country”?
3) “Most crimes are committed with unregistered and illegal handguns, often
either stolen. Note: Vague–how often is “often”? How many is most (total number)?

*

1.5 Synopsis
“Gun registry should be eliminated because it failed and it is ineffective in its function. First, it failed because it does not prevent crime with legal guns or have effect on crime rate. Second, it is ineffective in reducing guns for use in crime because often such guns are acquired illegally, which it does not address. And it is ineffective in reducing domestic murders because such people will always find other weapons. Finally, it has no effect on crimes against the police since they are done either with legal guns or illegal guns.
1.4 No Conceptual Analysis

*

2.1 Argument Structure
8. The gun registry is failed and ineffective.
1. GR should be eliminated
3. GR fails to prevent crimes with legal guns.
2. Gun Registry failed
5.GR has no effect on crime rate (implied).
7. US has no registry, but crime is decreasing.
6. Canada has registry, but crime is increasing
4. GR did not prevent three rampages with legal guns.
+
11. If GR does not decrees guns for use in crime and reduce domestic murders, then it is ineffective (implied)
13. Most crimes use stolen or smuggled guns
14. GR does not prevent stealing or smuggling of guns
12. GR does not decrease guns for use in crimes
15. GR does not reduce domestic murders
10. GR does not decrease guns for use in crimes and reduce domestic murders
17. People who want to kill family, will find the weapons
16. Domestic murders are low
+
+
+
9. Ineffective or failed programs should be eliminated (implied)
+

*

2.2 Argument Structure
8
1
3
2
5 (implied)
7
6
4
+
11
13
14
12
15
10
17
16
+
+
+
9 (implied)
+

Failure
Argument
Ineffective Argument

*

3.1 Argument Analysis: Failure Argument
3
2
4
3. GR fails to prevent crimes with legal guns.
4. GR failed to prevent three rampages with legal guns
8
The argument line that argues that GR failed ( 2) has two independent arguments that support it (3 and 5).
Summarise: Let’s consider premise 3 first: It claims that GR failed because it failed to prevent crimes with legal weapons. And it supports this by pointing out to three cases of rampages with legal guns.
Assess strength: This argument is an inductive generalization. The argument is weak because its sample is very small (three crimes); it is not representative (rampages and college shootings in Montreal); and observations are not systematic.
Assess Claims: Are the claims themselves true? Was GR functioning at the time of the rampages? Were they legal guns? Not have enough information (have to assume).
Challenge Claims: Does the argument make a presupposition that GR must prevent all crimes with legal guns? GR is supposed to reduce crimes, not eliminate them.

*

3.1 Argument Analysis: Failure Argument
2
5 (implied)
7
6
+
5.GR has no effect on crime rate (implied).
6. Canada has registry, but crime is increasing
8
The argument line that argues that GR failed ( 2) has two independent arguments that support it (3 and 5). Now, let’s consider premise 5:
Summarise: The argument claims that GR fails by implying that it has no effect on the crime rate. It is supported by the statistics for Canada and US showing that US without registry has decrease in crimes while Canada has an increase.
Assess strength: This is a causal argument, denying a causal connection. The argument is weak because it fails to take into account other factors that contribute to crime rates. It is possible that crime rate would be much higher in Canada without GR and much lower in US with GR. This would be strong if other variables were controlled.
Assess Claims: Are the claims themselves true? Was GR in Canada functioning during periods cited? We do not have enough information to assess the truth.
Challenge Claims: No claims to challenge here.
7. US has no registry, but crime is decreasing.

*

3.1 Argument Analysis: Failure Argument
The Failure Argument is quite weak. It includes a weak inductive generalization and a weak causal argument.
We have little information to check the truth of the claims themselves. We have to rely on the author to provide true claims, but without references to reliable sources makes the case weaker.
3.1 Argument Analysis: Inefficiency Argument
The argument line that GR is ineffective basically defines what effectiveness is and argues that GR fails to live up to these conditions.
The argument line includes a number of deductive arguments at the beginning and some inductive arguments at the top.
Lets look at the first step in the argument sub-conclusion 8.
8
11
13
14
12

15
10
17
16
+

+

+

3
2
5 (implied)
7
6
4

+

8

*

3.1 Argument Analysis: Inefficiency Argument
Lets look at the first step in the argument sub-conclusion 8.
Summarise: The argument claims that GR is ineffective because it does not decrease guns for use in crimes and reduce domestic murders. The argument is deductive (Modus ponens) but we can translate it into categorical logic
11. All things that don’t reduce domestic murders or guns are ineffective things
10. All GR are things that don’t reduce domestic murders or guns …
8. All GR are ineffective things.

Assess validity/strength: This deductive argument is valid. The question is whether it is sound. Are the claims true?
Assess Claims: We have to trust the author that registry has two functions which define whether it is effective (Pr. 11) The main question is whether 10 is true, for this we have to check how this premise is supported.
8
11
10

+
Ineffective things
I
gun registry
G
Things that don’t reduce…
B

*

3.1 Argument Analysis: Inefficiency Argument
How is premise 10 supported?
Premise 10 is basically a joining of two conclusions (premises 12 and 15). We could check the validity of joining, but this is not necessary (this is conjunction inference in propositional logic). Instead, lets look at the argument for premise 12.
Summarise: The argument claims that GR does not decrease guns for use in crimes because most crimes are made with stolen or smuggled guns and GR does not prevent that.
13
14
12
15
+
+
10
13. Most crimes use stolen or smuggled guns
14. GR does not prevent stealing or smuggling of guns
12. GR does not decrease guns for use in crimes
Assess validity/strength: This argument can be put into a categorical form if we add extra implied premises. But even now it is clear that it is invalid. Premise 13 says that only some crimes are done with stolen guns. So, even if GR did not prevent illegal guns, it does not follow that it does not decrease availability of legal guns for use in crimes. But this is what the conclusion states. Invalid.
Assess Claims: The claim 13 is too vague (how many are most)? Furthermore, no support is given for premise 14. By reducing guns in general and guns in unreliable hands, GR might reduce the number of guns that are likely to be stolen.

*

3.1 Argument Analysis: Inefficiency Argument
Summarise: The argument claims that GR does not reduce domestic murders because they are already low and people will always find a weapon of opportunity.
16. Domestic murders are low
17. People who want to kill family, will find the weapons
15. GR does not reduce domestic murders
12
15
10
17
16
+
Premise 10 is supported with two premises, 12 and 15. We have determined that premise 12, if stated in unqualified form (i.e. GR does not reduce any guns for crimes) is false. So the argument fails, but we should also look at premise 15.
Assess validity/strength: This is an inductive argument (premises are not linked). The basis for drawing the conclusion is unclear. Premise 16 appears irrelevant. Premise 17 is a general unsupported claim (empirical prediction). The argument is very weak.
Assess/Challenge Claims: Claim 16 is too vague and irrelevant to the conclusion—the fact that domestic crimes are low does not mean they can’t or should not be reduced. No evidence (systematic or anecdotal) is cited in support of premise17: even is some people would find weapons of opportunity, without easily available guns some might not. (Hasty Generalization).

*

3.1 Argument Analysis: Inefficiency Argument
Overall, the Inefficiency Argument is weak.
The main problems are related to the premises 12 and 15, which are supposed to lead to the conclusion (10) that GR does not reduce guns available for crimes or reduce domestic murders.
Claim 12 is derived from an invalid argument—even if GR does not reduce illegal guns, it does not mean it can’t prevent crimes with legal guns. Moreover, no evidence is given to show that GR does not reduce availability of guns for theft.
Claim 15 is largely unsupported. The main problem is with premise 17. It appears to be a hasty generalization without clear sample. Claim 16 is irrelevant.
3.1 Argument Analysis: Overall Argument
The overall argument is weak. The argument that GR fails is based on hasty generalization and weak causal argument. The argument that GR is ineffective is based on an invalid argument and on another hasty generalization.
Finally, even if the arguments were strong, the conclusion that guns registry should be eliminated does not follow. No argument had been provided to show that it can’t be fixed (Challenging claim 9: Ineffective or failed programs should be eliminated)
8
11
13
14
12

15
10
17
16
+

+

+

*

Diagramming Argument

For each of the following, a) identify inference indicators, and b) identify each claim by drawing square brackets around each claim and numbering the claims c) portray the structure of the argument using arrow diagrams

1. In all wars there is the chance innocent people will be killed, and we should never kill innocent people, even for a good cause. So, we should not participate in this war.

2. Some people justify deception as simply a part of good business practice. However, good business practice is built upon trust. And trust is undermined by deception. So, good business practice should not be built upon deception.

3. Whenever we find evidence of this kind of erosion, we know that it has taken many millions of years for the rock formation to develop. Therefore, we know this rock formation developed over many millions of years.

4. An ethics committee should be impartial. If it is appointed by and answers solely to those it is monitoring, it cannot be impartial. So an ethics committee must be appointed by and answer to an independent source.

5. Deregulation of electrical power in California brought tremendous increases in the cost of electricity; in some cases, increases of three thousand percent were common. The proposal to deregulate electrical power in Ontario is likely to produce even worse consequences, for Canada is surrounded by American states that have higher energy costs, and those states will rapidly drive up the cost of electricity within Ontario.

6. Never buy a car more than five years old. The repair costs are too high.

7. We should all work to control global warming. If we don’t, the world will be uninhabitable by humans within fifty years. My opponents contend that this would be costly. Yet recent studies by the European Union estimate that it would take less than one percent of Gross National Product to implement such reforms. Such an investment would not be costly considering the alternative.

8. We shouldn’t ban books in the schools. It undermines free thought and it limits what we can teach. To those who object, arguing that this would allow racist and other unacceptable books in the schools, I reply that such works, if taught to expose racism and sexism, can have a positive role in the curriculum.

9. We should legalize marijuana. It would have many benefits. It would give chemotherapy patients access to a drug that would help alleviate their symptoms. It would allow police time to chase more “deserving” criminals. It would give people a recreational drug that is far safer than tobacco or alcohol. To those who assert that it would justify impaired driving, I reply that this is not the case. Alcohol being legal does not mean that a person can legally drive under the influence. If a person is going to smoke up and drive, then that person is under the influence and should be charged. Legalizing marijuana does not inherently mean that we justify its abuse.

10. Definitions cannot, by their very nature, be either “true” or “false,” only more or less useful. For this reason, it makes relatively little sense to argue over definitions.

11. She won’t get the promotion. She has antagonized virtually everyone on the committee.

ArgumentDiagram Answers

1.

1[ In all wars there is the chance innocent people will be killed ], and 2[ we should never

kill innocent people, even for a good cause. ] So, 3 [we should not participate in this war.]

1 + 2


3

2.

1[ Some people justify deception as simply a part of good business practice. ] However, 2

[good business practice is built upon trust.] 3[And trust is undermined by deception. ] So,4

[ good business practice should not be built upon deception. ]

2 + 3


4

3.

1 [ Whenever we find evidence of this kind of erosion, we know that it has taken many

millions of years for the rock formation to develop. ] Therefore, 2 [we know this rock

formation developed over many millions of years.]

1



2

4.

1 [An ethics committee should be impartial. ] 2 [ If it is appointed by and answers solely to

those it is monitoring, it cannot be impartial. ] So 3 [ an ethics committee must be

appointed by and answer to an independent source. ]

2 + 1


3

5.

1 [ Deregulation of electrical power in California brought tremendous increases in the cost

of electricity; ] 2 [ in some cases, increases of three thousand percent were common. ] 3 [

The proposal to deregulate electrical power in Ontario is likely to produce even worse

consequences, ] for 4 [ Canada is surrounded by American states that have higher energy

costs, ] and 5 [those states will rapidly drive up the cost of electricity within Ontario. ]

1 + 4 + 5


3

6.

Never buy a car more than five years old. The repair costs are too high.

2


1

7.

1 [We should all work to control global warming. ] 2 [ If we don’t, the world will be

uninhabitable by humans within fifty years. ] My opponents contend that 3 [ this would be

costly. ] Yet recent studies by the European Union estimate that 4 [it would take less than

one percent of Gross National Product to implement such reforms. ] 5 [ Such an investment

would not be costly considering the alternative.]

4

5

2 3


1

8.

1 [We shouldn’t ban books in the schools. ] 2 [ It undermines free thought ] and 3 [it limits

what we can teach. ] 4 [To those who object, arguing that this would allow racist and other

unacceptable books in the schools, ] I reply that 5 [such works, if taught to expose racism

and sexism, can have a positive role in the curriculum. ]

5

2 + 3 4


1

9.

1 [We should legalize marijuana. ] 2 [ It would have many benefits.] 3 [ It would give

chemotherapy patients access to a drug that would help alleviate their symptoms. ] 4 [ It

would allow police time to chase more “deserving” criminals. ] 5 [ It would give people a

recreational drug that is far safer than tobacco or alcohol. ] To those who assert that 6 [it

would justify impaired driving, ] I reply that 7 [ this is not the case. ] 8 [ Alcohol being legal

does not mean that a person can legally drive under the influence. ] 9 [ If a person is going

to smoke up and drive, then that person is under the influence and should be charged. ] 10

[ Legalizing marijuana does not inherently mean that we justify its abuse. ]

8 + 9

3 4 5 7

  

2 6


1

10.

1 [ Definitions cannot, by their very nature, be either “true” or “false,” only more or less

useful. ] For this reason, 2 [it makes relatively little sense to argue over definitions. ]

1


2

11.

1 [ She won’t get the promotion. ] 2 [ She has antagonized virtually everyone on the

committee. ]

2

1