Question #3:
Las Vegas has too many people. There's not enough water in the desert to support more than a million people. And the infrastructure of the city can't handle more than a million: The streets are overcrowded, and traffic is always congested; the schools are overcrowded, and new ones can't be built fast enough. We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county.
1. Las Vegas has too many people.
2. There's not enough water in the desert to support more than a million people.
3. The infrastructure of the city can't handle more than a million
4. The streets are overcrowded,
5. Traffic is always congested;
6. The schools are overcrowded,
7. And new ones can't be build fast enough.
8. We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county.
Argument? Yes this is an argument.
Conclusion: We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county.
Additional premises needed? All the premises supports the conclusion but it is possible to add details and facts to support each premises.
Identify any subargument: 2,3,4,5,6 and 7 are independent and support the conclusion.
All in all the argument was good but the argument could have been stronger if the author wrote more details to support each premises. This exercise was helpful because it helped me break down how to analyze an argument step by step. Now I understand how to analyze an argument better.
Hey there! I really like you blog!
ReplyDeleteI like the way you formatted it because it made it easy to read and made it easy to understand. I felt the way you spread it out made it easier to examine rather than the crunched up version that was in the book. (All of it scrambled together is what made me have to reread it!) Everything was well written and followed the guidelines of a complex argument.
I do agree with you though. If the author did use more detail in the Argument it would have made it a stronger one!