Critical Thinking
Essay Preview: Critical Thinking
Report this essay
Standard form:
It is so obviously true that pot is something you shouldnt use that only a pothead like you wouldnt see it.
Using pot turns you to a degenerate gun crazy delinquent “DGCD”
You dont want to be a DGCD
You should not use pot.
C.C: Having a hard life causes you to become a DGCD.
3.1. There are lots of people who had a hard life but didnt do pot.
3.2. People who had a hard life time and didnt do pot, didnt become DGCD
If you dont do pot you wont become a DGCD.
4.1. Potheads cant hold jobs.
4.2.1.
Pot is a part of your stupid lifestyle.
4.2. You are a pothead.
You are not a person who can hold a job.
5.1. We dont want gang crime to explode in this town.
5.2.1. Pot use causes all gang crime.
C.C: Legalization could reduce gang crime.
5.2.2.1. DGCDs join gangs.
5.2.2.2.1. Pot use leads to having more DGCDs.
5.2.2.2.2. Legalization leads to an increase in the pot use.
5.2.2.2. Legalization leads to having more DGCDs.
5.2.2. Legalization leads to having more people joining gangs.
Either we crack down on potheads like you or gang crime will explode
in this town.
We should crack down on potheads.
6.1. Instead of doing pot normal people drink and smoke.
C.C: Drinking and smoking are harmful.
6.2.1.1. My drinking does not hurt anybody else.
6.2.1.2. You cant legislate morality.
6.2.1. Alcohols use should not be prohibited.
6.2.2.1. People who say smoking is not safe are Nazis.
6.2.2.2.
The connection between cigarettes and cancer has not been
proven.
6.2.2. I say cigarettes are safe.
6.2. Drinking and smoking are safe.
6. You should be like normal people
7.1. If pot wasnt destructive then it wouldnt be illegal.
7.2. Pot is illegal.
C.C: Pot is beneficial for medical reasons.
7.3.1.1. I drink moderately.
C.C: You dont look healthy.
7.3.1.2.1. You cant say that or I disown you.
7.3.1.2. I am healthy.
7.3.1. Pot is unlike alcohol, which is safe if taken moderately.
7.3. Pot is always destructive.
7. Pot is destructive to mind and morals.
Categorical arguments:
* 4.1. Potheads are not people who can hold jobs. (Universal negation “E”)
4.2. You are a pothead. (Universal affirmation “A”)
C: You are not a person who can hold a job. (Universal negation “E”)
Since the middle term (pothead) is the subject of 4.1. and 4.1. is an “E” statement, middle term is distributed; Therefore the argument obeys the rule #1 which demands a distributed middle term.
Since the major term (you) is a subject of an “E” statement and the major term (a person who can hold a job) is the predicate of an “E” statement, both the major and minor terms are distributed in the conclusion. However, since the minor term is also the subject of 4.2. which is an “A” statement, it is distributed in the premises as well. Likewise the major term is the predicate of 4.1. , an “E” statement, so it is also distributed in the premises; Therefore the argument obeys rule #2 which demands that any term distributed in the conclusion be distributed in the premises.
Since 4.1. is an “E” statement (therefore a negation) and 4.2. is an “A” statement (therefore an affirmation) the premises contain one negation. Since the conclusion is an “E” statement it contains one negation. Therefore the argument obeys rule #3 which demands that the number of negations in the premises equal the number of them in conclusion.
Its a valid categorical argument since it obeys the three rules.
* 5.2.2.2.1. Pot use leads to having more DGCDs. (Universal affirmation)
5.2.2.2.2. Legalization leads to an increase in the pot use. (Universal affirmation)
5.2.2.2.
Legalization leads to having more DGCDs. (Universal affirmation)
Since the middle term (pot use) is the subject of 5.2.2.2.1.