#3 on pg. 225
Las Vegas has too many people. (1) There’s not enough water in the desert to support more than a million people. (2) And the infrastructure of the city can’t handle more than a million: (3) the streets are overcrowded (4) and traffic is always congested; (5) the schools are overcrowded (6) and new ones can’t be built fast enough. (7) We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and country. (8)
Argument: Yes
Conclusion: 8
Additional premises needed? Infrastructure must be defined or else you must know what it means to understand this argument. Describing what tough zoning laws can be implemented in (8). Making statements 1, 2,3,4, and 5 if statements like: If there's not enough water for more people, then their are too many people.
Identify any subargument: 2 and 3 are subarguments of 1. 4, 5, 6, and 7 support 3. 1 supports 8.
Good Argument? It is a good argument but would be better if 8 was developed more.
The exercise was useful because it allowed me to break up the statement to make more sense of it. I was able to distinguish the difference between a conclusion and premises. It also made me think about what I can do to make arguments stronger and more believable.
Reina, this is a well done analysis of the argument. I think the premises that are already listed make for a strong argument that has solid support. However, adding an eighth premise about the definition of infrastructure and zoning laws would only make this strong argument easier to defend with specific facts.
ReplyDeleteI also shared the same opinion on this exercise. Going through the argument and dissecting it by details allows the reader to understand what it takes to create a strong argument and how to back up the argument with sufficient premises. It also helped to read how other people interpreted and conducted the exercise.