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)
-traffic is always congested (5)
-the schools are overcrowded, and new ones can’t be built fast enough (6)
we should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county. (7)
Argument? (Y/N)
Yes, it’s a valid argument.
Conclusion?
We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county.
Additional premises needed?
I think if the argument were written in an “If/then” style, it would have been a bit more effective. At least, to my understanding it looks like a better way to put it.
“Las Vegas has too many people. IF there’s not enough water, as well as a stable infrastructure to support more than a million people, and traffic is always congested, THEN we should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county.”
Identify any subargument?
Lines 2-6 are independent and support the conclusion. And the conclusion supports Line 1.
Good argument?
Sure, it’s a good and through argument to give. The original argument is a bit verbose, but I understand it all.
Las Vegas is crowded and it’s small. Cigarette smoke can be smelled everywhere you go, a lot of people from far and wide go around from casino to casino here. Above all it’s located in the desert. With its hot and humid weather year round, of course you would worry about Las Vegas having a lot of people because supplies could be drained out a lot quicker.
I thought that this exercise was somewhat useful. It's definitely a very through way of analyzing an argument. The textbook is really confusing to understand for this section though. The examples they provided didn't really help me out so much. Like, in the argument about Justice Warren's opinion, the explanation at the bottom about the person's answers just felt like it was rewriting everything over again. In other words, I felt that the book could have put more clarification into this section. Well, I needed more clarification.
Feel free to clarify more for me on how to analyze an argument like this.
Hellos CVgotsoul,
ReplyDeleteI like how you precisely declare which sentence belong to which category. Also I agree with you that the "if" and "then" would make the argument clearer. But I think the writer is trying to say that water is already not enough to support the continually growing population that is residing in Las Vegas. But yes, your end thought is correct since Las Vegas' climate is already so hot, humid, and dry there are people that fear there might not be enough resources for all the people that live there not just vacationing there. Also I would add that due to Las Vegas low housing prices couples are starting their families there which over crowds the schools faster than they are able to be build as an additional premises needed. Just a suggestion like a side note to make the argument stronger. :] hopefully that helps you understand more what "additional premises needed" means. Awesome post! :] Keep up the good work! :]
[ellacomm]
I really liked your post about the structures of arguments. We both chose the same argument but then we kind have interpreted it in different ways. I liked your explanation under “additional premises needed?”. I was also unsure on how to add a premise but the way you stated it in an if/then format made it easier to understand and I believe it also made it a stronger argument. I also agree with you on how difficult it was to understand this concept in the book. The book didn’t really have enough examples for me to fully grasp the concept of the structure of an argument. Overall I feel like you still did a great job explaining the structure of an argument.
ReplyDelete