Arguments Are SupportWhile being open-minded and playing the be.docx
- 1. Arguments Are Support While being open-minded and playing “the believing game” is a great starting place whenever you're having a discussion, the remainder of the webtext will focus on what Peter Elbow calls “the doubting game.” To filter through all the ideas presented to you and decide what to believe, it's important to turn a skeptical eye to every argument you encounter. The first step is to understand exactly what makes up an argument. To say that something is true is to make a claim. But to give reasons to believe that it is true is to make an argument. Thus, all arguments consist of at least two parts: 1. Premise: one or more reasons or pieces of evidence to support the claim 2. Conclusion: the claim being supported Arguments make the process of thinking visible. The logical leap from the premises to the conclusion is known as an inference. Whenever you draw a conclusion based on a piece of information, such as seeing a threateningly dark sky and deciding that there’s a good chance of rain, you’re making an inference. When these inferences are articulated with premises and conclusions, they make an argument. Recognizing Arguments Not every piece of text or spoken speech you encounter is necessarily an argument. Unless it has both premises and a conclusion, it’s not an argument. If no support is offered, it’s not an argument. It might be true. It might be a fact. It might be an opinion. But if there are no reasons to back it up, its not an argument. Consider the following passage: People say I'm angry. I am. I'm angry that our president started an unnecessary war. I'm upset that our military got away with torturing people. I'm mad that an insurance company sold policies that my government had to cover, and they're still open. I'm upset that companies like Countrywide and Washington
- 2. Mutual collapsed the housing market. I'm totally disgusted in Congress. 1 This could be the beginning of an argument—maybe the author goes on to support his opinions with reasons and evidence. But as it stands, this piece of text is merely a list of assertions of belief. Narratives are also not arguments: I remember being paid $5.75 an hour at my first job as a host at Hobee’s, a brunch restaurant in the East Bay town of Fremont where I grew up. The dismal pay rate felt like a significant amount of money at the time, but then again it was the year 2000, I was living with my parents, and I was only 14. … It’s hard to imagine how my coworkers at Hobee’s were surviving on $5.75 an hour all those years ago, many of them with families to support. 2 The text above is also not an argument. The writer is reflecting upon his memories, and his feelings about his memories, but because he doesn’t make any definitive claim, it’s not an argument. Finding Premises and Conclusions When you’re spelling out arguments, the standard form is to list the premises first, and then state the conclusion that the premises lead to. But arguments in real life are often not as tidy. The ability to tease out the premises and conclusion in a body of text is a key part of analyzing arguments—and making sure that what you’re reading is an argument in the first place. An important first step is to find the conclusions. Sometimes speakers or writers will provide clues about what their conclusions are with indicator words and phrases such as: · Therefore… · So… · Consequently… · Hence… · Which shows that… · It follows that… But not all arguers use these phrases to mark their conclusion
- 3. (and not every instance of these phrases means that it’s a conclusion!). Furthermore, while it’s standard practice to map out arguments by listing the premises first and ending with the conclusion they lead to, not all arguments in real life end on the concluding proposition. For instance, consider the following argument: Debtors’ prisons impose devastating human costs. They lead to coercive debt collection, forcing poor people to forgo the basic necessities of life in order to avoid arrest and jailing. Debtors’ prisons waste taxpayer money and resources by jailing people who may never be able to pay their debts. This imposes direct costs on the government and further destabilizes the lives of poor people struggling to pay their debts and leave the criminal justice system behind. And most troubling, debtors’ prisons create a racially-skewed, two-tiered system of justice in which the poor receive harsher, longer punishments for committing the same crimes as the rich, simply because they are poor. 3 This argument can be broken down as follows: Premise: Debtors’ prisons lead to coercive debt collection. Premise: Debtors’ prisons waste taxpayer money and resources by jailing people who may never be able to pay their debts. Premise: Debtors’ prisons create a racially-skewed, two-tiered system of justice in which the poor receive harsher, longer punishments for committing the same crimes as the rich, simply because they are poor. Conclusion: Debtors' prisons impose devastating human costs. Note that here the conclusion appears at the beginning of the paragraph, and it is not surrounded by any recognizable indicator words, but it is still the main claim that the author uses the following propositions to support. If you have trouble finding the conclusion, a good place to start is to ask yourself questions like: · What’s the point? · About what is the writer trying to convince me? · What is the writer’s purpose for writing this? Once you have a good idea about what the conclusion is, you’ll
- 4. want to find the premises used to support the conclusion. Premises can be identified using questions like: · How is this claim supported? · What reasons does the speaker or writer give for why I should believe this? Extended Arguments Some arguments you encounter will be simple, with a small number of premises leading up to a single, clearly stated conclusion. “You should hire Kelsey for the job. She has more relevant experience than any of the other candidates.” Premise: Kelsey has more relevant experience than any of the other candidates. Conclusion: Therefore, Kelsey should be hired for the job. Other arguments may have far more premises supporting their conclusions, or they may contain sub-arguments, which are subordinate arguments inside the main argument that support the main conclusion. This means that one claim might simultaneously be the conclusion of a sub-argument and the premise of the main argument. These arguments that contain sub-arguments are called extended arguments. You will frequently encounter them when you read editorials, reviews, essays, blog posts, etc., or when you’re writing a paper of your own. Think back to the pro/con list ( “Are Social Networking Sites Good for Our Society?”) that you looked at in Practice: Thinking Independently. Each numbered point on the pro side supported the conclusion that social networking sites are good for society. Main Argument Premise: Social networking sites spread information faster than any other media. Premise: Law enforcement uses social networking sites to catch and prosecute criminals. Premise: Social networking sites help students do better at school.
- 5. (and so on) Conclusion: Social networking sites are good for our society. However, notice how each of the points on the list contains an explanation supporting it. To translate this into argument terms, this means that the statement “Social networking sites help students do better in school” functions as both a premise in the main argument, “Social networking sites are good for society,” as well as the conclusion in a sub-argument. Sub-Argument Premise: 59 percent of students with access to the Internet report that they use social networking sites to discuss educational topics. Premise: After George Middle School in Portland, OR introduced a social media program to engage students, grades went up by 50 percent, chronic absenteeism went down by 33 percent, and 20 percent of students school-wide voluntarily completed extra-credit assignments. Conclusion: Social networking sites help students do better at school. To put it all together, this particular sub-argument fits inside the main argument like this: Extended Argument Premise: Social networking sites spread information faster than any other media. Premise: Law enforcement uses social networking sites to catch and prosecute criminals. Premise: Social networking sites help students do better at school. Premise: 59 percent of students with access to the Internet report that they use social networking sites to discuss educational topics. Premise: After George Middle School in Portland, OR introduced a social media program to engage students, grades went up by 50 percent, chronic absenteeism went down by 33 percent, and 20 percent of students school-wide voluntarily completed extra-credit assignments.
- 6. Conclusion: Social networking sites help students do better at school. Conclusion: Social networking sites are good for our society. Answer the following questions about the material above. Multiple Choice Question Which of the following qualifies as a complete argument with both a premise and a conclusion? · “In the next election, I’m going to vote Democrat. I’m going to convince all my friends to vote for Democrats too.” · “Clients and colleagues alike are complaining about the strong perfume you wear in the office, so you should switch brands.” · “The rise of reality TV has completely destroyed the integrity of the sitcom.” · “Studies show that eating kale is great for cardiovascular support.” Multiple Choice Question Which of the following is a complex argument that contains sub-arguments supporting the premises of the main argument? · a claim · a simple argument · a conclusion · an extended argument Analyze the argument contained in the excerpt below, and then answer the next two questions. · Voters in New Jersey should adopt a constitutional amendment that raises the minimum wage to $8.25 an hour starting on Jan. 1. If it is approved, more than 400,000 people now working at or near minimum wage could benefit. ... Business leaders say, as they often do, that such increases would cost jobs. But a recent study by New Jersey Policy Perspective estimated that because the working poor spend virtually every extra dollar they earn, the increase in pay would add $175 million to the economy in 2014, most of it in New Jersey.4 Identify at least one premise from the argument above.
- 7. Identify the conclusion from the argument above. Is the following passage an argument? Explain your answer. Video gaming (playing video games) has become a popular activity for people of all ages. Many children and adolescents spend large amounts of time playing them. Video gaming is a multibillion-dollar industry bringing in more money than movies and DVDs. Video games have become very sophisticated and realistic. Some games connect to the Internet, which can allow children and adolescents to play online with unknown adults and peers.5 Is the following passage an argument? Explain your answer. More than 50 percent of Europeans speak more than one language. By contrast, only about 18 percent of Americans speak a language other than English. Therefore, learning a second (or third) language is a tangible way you can distinguish yourself in our global business world. 6 YouTube video. https://youtu.be/EA-91_LoKIw. Uploaded February 23, 2009, by CBS News. To activate captions, first click the play button and then click the CC button in the embedded player. For a text transcript, follow the link below. John McCardell of Middlebury College presents the following premises in his argument: (1) the minimum-21 drinking law has created a culture of dangerous and unsupervised binge-drinking; (2) the minimum-21 drinking law is impossible to enforce; and (3) 18-year-olds in this country are trusted to vote, perform jury duty, and serve in the military. Which of the following represents the conclusion he reaches? · Underage drinking should be discouraged before it leads to more deaths. · The drinking age should remain at 21. · There should be no minimum drinking age. · The drinking age should be lowered to 18. To what extent do you agree with the logic that when laws are
- 8. too difficult or expensive to enforce, we should dispense with them? Provide at least one example or counter-example to demonstrate why you feel that way. The Gordie Foundation speaks of the death of a student who died of alcohol poisoning. What is their conclusion? · The minimum-21 drinking law should be raised even higher. · The minimum-21 drinking law is only a first step in the battle against alcohol abuse. · The minimum-21 drinking law should be left alone. · The minimum-21 drinking law leads to reckless behavior. Chuck Hurley, the executive director of MADD, argues that the drinking age should stay at 21. Which of the following does Hurley use to support his conclusion? · an anecdote about an avoidable tragedy in which an 18-year- old died from binge drinking · statistics showing how driving fatalities go down when the drinking age is increased and up when the drinking age is decreased · statistics from the Surgeon General indicating how many Americans under the age of 21 die each year of alcohol-related causes · a video clip of Ronald Reagan demonstrating proof that it was a good idea to raise the drinking age Many complex societal issues involve numerous competing arguments rather than a single, straightforward, indisputable answer. How does Leslie Stahl summarize the “conundrum” of the minimum-21 drinking law?Deduction After you know you’re looking at an argument, and you understand its parts, the next step is to figure out what type it is. Some arguments conclude that something is definitely true, while other arguments conclude that something is probably true. An argument with a logical structure that offers certainty, provided the premises are true, is called a deductive argument. Conversely, the premises of an inductive argument might provide strong evidence in support of a conclusion, but they do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion with certainty.
- 9. Deductive arguments are those that offer certainty. They usually use general premises to draw a specific and logically necessary conclusion. Inductive arguments use two or more premises to support a tentative conclusion. They usually start with specific observations that combine to give reasonable certainty to a general conclusion. Like any argument, deductive arguments come in a variety of forms when found in everyday speech and writing, but when it comes time to evaluate deductive arguments, they’re usually translated into a standard form. While there are several types of deductive arguments, the examples on this page will be categorical syllogisms, which are deductive arguments that use two premises and a conclusion to make a claim about a whole class or category of items. The following is an example of a categorical syllogism: Premise: Some ballerinas are not redheads. Premise: All ballerinas are dancers. Conclusion: Therefore, some dancers are not redheads. A good deductive argument is referred to as sound. To be considered sound, a deductive argument must meet two qualifications: 1. The argument must have a valid structure. 2. All premises must be true.Validity To evaluate the structural validity of an argument, you look at it as a whole, not just the premises as individual statements. A valid argument is one in which the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Consider the following example of an invalid argument: Premise: All chickens are domesticated animals. Premise: All cows are domesticated animals. Conclusion: Therefore, all cows are chickens. When you see an argument like this one, where the premises are obviously true, while the conclusion is obviously false, it generally means that they don’t support the conclusion that is being made. In this case, because the argument doesn’t make a
- 10. claim about domesticated animals as a whole category, it doesn’t necessarily follow that all cows are chickens. In other words, it’s possible to be a domesticated animal without being a chicken, and it’s possible to be a domesticated animal without being a cow. In fact, it’s possible to be a domesticated animal without being a chicken or a cow. To reach the conclusion that all cows are chickens, you would first have to provide a premise about all domesticated animals, such as, “All domesticated animals are cows.” However, at that point, though you would have a valid structure, one of the premises would be untrue, so it would still be an unsound argument. Because determining validity in your head is often so difficult, logicians have developed rules to systematically evaluate syllogisms. Learning these syllogistic rules can help you evaluate syllogisms more readily.Truth In addition to evaluating the structural validity of a deductive argument, you must also investigate the truth of the premises before you can pronounce it sound. When evaluating deductive arguments, it is important to look at each individual premise and ask yourself if the statement is accurate, doing research if necessary. No matter how logical the argument sounds, if one or more of the premises is false, the entire argument is unsound. Premise: All presidents of the United States are people with tattoos. Premise: Benjamin Franklin was a president of the United States. Conclusion: Therefore, Benjamin Franklin was a person with a tattoo. In the syllogism above, the reasoning is solid, but since both the first and second premises are false, the argument is not sound. Even if just one of the premises were false, the argument would still be unsound. Since the whole point of deductive reasoning is to find certain truth, it’s important to ask yourself if the premises in a
- 11. deductive argument are completely true all the time. This need for your audience to accept the truth of your premises before they can be asked to accept your conclusion as certain truth is why making sound deductive arguments about controversial issues is often so difficult. Premise: Any practice in the United States that violates the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution should be illegal. Premise: The death penalty violates the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Conclusion: Therefore, the death penalty should be illegal. Since the premises logically support the conclusion, it is likely that people on both sides of the death penalty debate would agree that this is a valid argument. However, not everyone would accept that it is a sound argument, because some would find the truth of the second premise to be contentious. In fact, some would argue with the truth of the first premise as well.Enthymemes In general, no one actually uses formal syllogisms when making arguments. However, deductive reasoning is something you encounter everyday—you just might not recognize deductive arguments when you hear them. Suppose you ask your instructor why your grade is so low, and your instructor tells you, “You didn’t do your webtext homework—that’s why you’re failing my course.” What your instructor is using is something called an enthymeme, or an abbreviated deductive syllogism that contains an implied premise. Premise: You are a student who didn’t do his or her webtext homework. (Implied) Premise: All students who didn’t do their webtext homework currently hold failing grades in my course. Conclusion: Therefore, you currently hold a failing grade in my course. When people talk in enthymemes, they often leave out the implied premise because they think it’s so obvious that it doesn’t need to be stated. But it’s often important to figure out
- 12. the assumed premise, because the assumption may not be as plainly true as the speaker thinks. Once you tease out the syllogism buried within an enthymeme, you may decide that the assumption the speaker is making needs a closer look. Consider the following enthymeme: “Fritz’s grandfather won’t know how to use Twitter—he’s 88!” Premise: Fritz’s grandfather is an 88-year-old. (Implied) Premise: No 88-year-olds are people who know how to use Twitter. Conclusion: Fritz’s grandfather is not a person who knows how to use Twitter. Even though the speaker never states that no 88-year-olds are people who know how to use Twitter, he implies it when he makes the leap from Fritz’s grandfather being 88 to Fritz’s grandfather definitely not knowing how to use Twitter. Arguments with enthymemes appear everywhere from casual conversations to discussions about controversial issues. The assumptions hidden in enthymemes often carry some truth to them, but they may or may not earn the guaranteed certainty of truth that comes with deductive arguments. Answer the following questions about the material above. Multiple Choice Question Which of the following is the BEST definition of a deductive argument? · an argument with true premises · an argument with a necessarily true conclusion, provided the premises are true · an argument with premises that suggest that the conclusion is probably true · an argument that contains the words “all,” “no,” or “some” Consider the following syllogism: Premise: All men are skillful drivers.Premise: Gus is a man.Conclusion: Therefore, Gus is a skillful driver. How does it hold up in terms of truth, validity, and soundness? · The premises are all true, and the argument is valid, so the argument is sound.
- 13. · The argument is valid, but not all of the premises are true, so the argument is unsound. · The premises are all true, but the argument is invalid, so the argument is unsound. · The premises aren’t true, and the argument is invalid, so the argument is unsound. Why is it hard to settle a debate on a controversial issue with a simple deductive argument? Isabelle says, “Since felons in this country are Americans just like the rest of us, they should be allowed to vote.” Which of the following represents the hidden assumption of her enthymeme? · All Americans are people with the right to vote. · Felons from other countries are allowed to vote. · Felons should sue for discrimination when they are not allowed to vote. · In previous elections, felons have not been allowed to vote. When Pedro is making his book pitch to a publisher, he says, “All the books in my series are about how to get rich fast. Trust me, they’ll sell like hotcakes.” What is the hidden assumption in Pedro’s enthymeme?Practice: Deduction Deductive Arguments and Enthymemes in the Wild In the exercises below, you will examine pieces of deductive reasoning from a variety of articles. The following passage is an excerpt from an article titled “The Problem with Special Ed” by Jay P. Greene, originally published in the National Review Online on September 14, 2009. The article questions the increase in special-education enrollments in recent years. Use the passage below to answer the following question. One of the reasons we know that reported disability rates lack credibility is that they vary dramatically from state to state. In New Jersey, for example, 18 percent of all students are classified as disabled, but in California the rate is only 10.5 percent. 7
- 14. Multiple Choice Question The first sentence in the passage forms an enthymeme. What is the hidden assumption of that enthymeme? · There are more students classified as disabled in eastern states than in western states. · All disability rates that vary from state to state lack credibility. · If disability rates were the same from state to state, they would definitely be credible. · Focusing on “reported” disability rates ignores possible unreported disabilities. The following passage is an excerpt from the article “Animal Rights Uncompromised: Zoos” from the “Uncompromising Stands on Animal Rights” series on the PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) website. Use the quoted enthymeme below to answer the next question. PETA opposes zoos because cages and cramped enclosures at zoos deprive animals of the opportunity to satisfy their most basic needs. 8 Multiple Choice Question Which of the following is the hidden assumption in the enthymeme above? · PETA would approve of zoos if they didn’t keep animals in cages and cramped enclosures. · PETA believes that zoos often lead to abnormal, neurotic, and even self-destructive behavior in animals. · PETA opposes institutions that deprive animals of the opportunity to satisfy their most basic needs. · PETA’s policy is to be against all zoos. The following passage is an excerpt from an op-ed in the Connecticut Mirror criticizing the Common Core standards implemented in Connecticut schools. Use the quoted enthymeme below to answer the next question. This standardized test of “college and career readiness” is particularly inappropriate and unreliable because not one teacher was involved in setting the learning goals.9
- 15. What is the hidden assumption in the enthymeme above? The following passage is an excerpt from an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times titled “What Are the Supreme Court Justices Hiding?” It is about the lack of transparency in the U.S. Supreme Court. Use the quoted enthymeme below to answer the next question. Supreme Court justices are government officials whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers, and their records, like those of the president, should be deemed public property and available for review after taking into account reasonable privacy concerns.10 Short Answer Question What is the hidden assumption in the enthymeme above?Induction As previously discussed, arguments are made for different reasons. While deductive arguments attempt to prove that something is absolutely certain, deductive reasoning is not the only way people understand the world. Other arguments focus on what is probably true, and knowledge gathered this way is called inductive reasoning. While deductive arguments start with broad concepts and then zoom in to reveal specific truths, inductive arguments work in reverse—they take a number of specific cases to draw a general conclusion that can be held with a reasonable degree of certainty. Deductive arguments are those that offer certainty. They usually use general premises to draw a specific and logically necessary conclusion. Inductive arguments use two or more premises to support a tentative conclusion. They usually start with specific observations that combine to give reasonable certainty to a general conclusion. The type of thinking found in inductive arguments usually looks something like this: Every time I have kept a gallon of milk in my fridge for more than a month after the expiration date, it has gone sour. That gallon of milk has been in my fridge for over a month after
- 16. the expiration date. Therefore, that gallon of milk has probably gone sour. The effect of milk going sour has happened so repeatedly that it is a reasonable speculation to assume that it will be sour again this time as well. As with all arguments, some inductive arguments are better than others. But inductive arguments cannot be subjected to the same kind of tests for validity that we use for deductive arguments. The categorical claims of deductive arguments tend to make them decisively true or false. Things are fuzzier when using inductive arguments, and the argument’s strength relies on the quality of the evidence used. The argument above seems fairly strong, largely because your personal experience probably matches up with the experience of the person doing the reasoning. The following argument is much weaker: Marcus is an engineering student who wears glasses. Lauren is an engineering student who wears glasses. Therefore, all engineering students wear glasses. Two instances do not create a high probability that the quality of wearing glasses applies to all engineering students.Qualities That Make for a Strong Inductive Argument · A large, diverse, and bias-free sample size of examples leading to the conclusion · A high percentage of instances that fit the conclusion · An analogy in which the items being compared are similar in relevant ways The scientific method relies heavily on inductive reasoning. If you observe that water freezes every time you lower its temperature to 32 degrees, you can make an inductive argument that the freezing temperature of water is strictly 32 degrees. As more people try this in more places with more diverse conditions, the strength of the argument increases. At its strongest, the argument simply states that water freezes at 32 degrees. However, there’s no way to prove that this is really true in all circumstances and in all places. We’re generalizing—
- 17. or using inductive reasoning—based on many tests. This knowledge can be quite reliable, but it’s not necessarily or categorically true in the way that a deductive argument is. Answer the following questions about the material above. Multiple Choice Question Which of the following is a true statement about inductive reasoning? · Inductive arguments do not have conclusions. · Inductive arguments reach definite conclusions. · Inductive arguments reach probable conclusions. · Inductive arguments do not need to offer support for their conclusions. Multiple Choice Question Your friend recommends her favorite mystery author, so you pick up one of the author’s books at the bookstore. You’re hooked, and before long you’ve read all nine of the author’s published novels. The plots vary, but you notice that eight of the nine novels have a male protagonist and take place in the American South. When the author’s tenth book comes out, you could use inductive reasoning to come to which of the following conclusions? · The book will definitely have a male protagonist and take place in the American South. · The book will probably have a male protagonist and take place in the American South. · The book will probably not have a male protagonist or take place in the American South. · The book will definitely not have a male protagonist or take place in the American South. Multiple Choice Question Craig is a college student claiming that he took a survey and is confident that the vast majority of students at his school vote in primary elections. Craig’s claim would be MOST persuasive if you knew he obtained his information in which of the following ways? · Craig put up a flier in the political science department asking
- 18. people to email him their responses. · Craig surveyed the first eight people he bumped into at a football game. · Craig surveyed everyone in his fraternity, and told his friends to ask their friends. · Craig surveyed every third person to walk into the student union during peak hours over the course of several days. Suppose you read a study that stated that 52 percent of all voters in the town of Marble Glen are registered Democrats. Now consider the following argument: The majority of voters in Marble Glen are Democrats. Fiona lives in Marble Glen. Therefore, Fiona is probably a Democrat. How strong or weak is this inductive argument? Explain your answer. Practice: Induction Debates over Gun Control Similar to the way that both sides of the drinking-age debate seek the most effective way to reduce alcohol-related fatalities, opposing sides in the gun-control debate share an interest in reducing the number of violent deaths but disagree about which laws best meet that goal. The first article below, an opinion piece from the Washington Post, discusses trends in tipping points of public opinion and policy change and how these lessons can be applied to gun control laws. In the second article, from the Brenner Brief, the writer addresses the controversy surrounding a new gun law in Illinois by presenting an argument about the effectiveness of gun control laws overall. Read the article below, and then answer the following questions. Searching for the Tipping Point on Gun Control Multiple Choice Question The writer of this article presents an inductive argument using the following premises: Premise: Gun rights advocates have remained focused and passionate, and gun laws have not changed significantly.
- 19. Premise: Advocates of gay rights made gains when they united their focus on same-sex marriage. Premise: Advocates of marijuana legalization made gains when they united their focus on medical marijuana. What conclusion does the writer draw from these premises? · Advocates of changing public policy or maintaining the status quo have the greatest chance of success when they are united and focused. · Sometimes having a focus can be a good thing, while other times being too focused detracts from the advocacy group’s goals. · Advocates for issues that don’t involve gun control have a better chance of achieving what they want than gun control advocates do. · Gun control laws will never change, because gun rights advocates are so focused, passionate, unyielding, and indefatigable. Multiple Choice Question The writer produces a second inductive argument using the following premises: Premise: In spite of unyielding opposition from tobacco companies, public opinion shifted over time to favor measures that discourage smoking. Premise: In spite of unyielding opposition from bar owners and defense attorneys, Mothers Against Drunk Driving eventually overcame public apathy about their cause. Premise: In spite of unyielding opposition from the car industry, public opinion shifted over time to favor tighter regulations regarding seat belts and air bags. What conclusion does the writer draw from these premises? · History is full of examples of surprising twists in public opinion that no one could have seen coming. · Public opinion is extremely fickle, and even the most determined campaigns often fail to persuade people. · Even if gun control advocates tighten their focus, public opinion will eventually turn against them.
- 20. · A public-health focus and persistence over time can often result in changes to public opinion even against great odds. Multiple Choice Question Which of the following BEST describes the writer’s main conclusion that he reaches from the two inductive arguments? · There are so many routes to change that it’s counterproductive to give up just because one path proves futile. · Gun control advocates have the best chance of making a difference in public opinion over time if they unite their focus on public health. · None of the proposed gun control solutions will actually solve the problem of reducing avoidable gun-related deaths. · It is inevitable that public opinion will eventually shift in favor of gun control. Read the article below, and then answer the following questions. Why New Illinois Concealed Carry Gun Law Increases Public Safety (PDF) Multiple Choice Question Which of the following BEST describes the main argument of this piece? · The new law in Illinois allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns will increase public safety. · Academic research has proven how dangerous it is for citizens to carry concealed handguns. · Governor Pat Quinn’s new gun control law will endanger public safety. · Illinois is a more dangerous place to live than any other state. Short Answer Question The writer offers research from an academic study to support his main argument about the relationship between gun control laws and crime. Explain how this support serves to form an inductive argument rather than a deductive argument. To what extent do you find the inductive arguments presented in both of these articles to be strong or weak? Explain your answer.