For each argument, provide a brief explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of the argument. You might consider whether the argument is inductive or deductive, or you might provide a diagram of the argument. Think about how the two arguments compare to each other. Is one better than the other? If so, what makes that one better? Is each a fair presentation of what someone taking that position would say? Are the premises reasonable? How might each argument be made better?
Topic: Should Marijuana be legalized for recreational use?
Argument 1: (for)
Premise: Creates local jobs.
Premise: Creates new both local and state taxes.
Conclusion: Legalizing Marijuana benefits both local and state revenue.
Argument 2: (against)
Premise: Increases crime.
Premise: Makes it easier for kids to obtain it.
Conclusion: Legalizing Marijuana puts the public at risk.
The first argument is true. It has been shown to be a huge revenue machine in Colorado by adding both small businesses, for example-the shops who sell the products and large businesses who manufacture the product-all of which are taxed locally and through the state providing revenue, this makes it an inductive argument.
The second argument is invalid due to the fluctuation of variable’s that will change from city to city and community to community. Thus it is a deductive argument.
What kinds of restrictions on gun ownership (if any) would be beneficial to society?
1. Shootings are often cause by legally sold weapons.
2. Legal weapons are sold through personal background checks.
3. Background checks are not thorough enough.
Conclusion- Shootings are caused by lack of thorough background checks
This is a deductive argument because it is strong but not valid, and is also based purely on theory.
1. The right to bare arms is a constitutional right.
2. Crime rate has been lowered due to the legal carry of weapons.
Conclusion- Through the exercising of our right to bare arms, the crime rate is lowered.
This is an inductive argument since it is backed by evidence and is based on observational studies.
Both arguments relate to each other as they discuss the results of gun control over ownership.
Argument #1 represents a con, whereas argument #2 represents a pro.
The first argument is looked at as invalid as the statements are based on assumption or opinion, not facts. This would be agreed upon by someone against gun ownership, implementing more restrictions. The second argument is looked at as valid as it provides hard evidence or facts that makes it valid. The second argument would be agreed upon by someone for gun ownership and implementing less restrictions.
The first argument could be made more conclusive if it were said that harsher background checks could reduce shootings. The second argument could be made more conclusive by saying our right to bare arms reduces the crime rate.