In the article programs dont make sense, Peter B. Gemma Jr. emphasizes that the constitution that give out free needles to junkies to help them avoid from the esteem of AIDS is totally prematurely. His main ground is that government cannot support free needles to reduce the number of people using drug. However, I totally disagree with him because his arguments were flawed.
First, when he says that the program does not nevertheless the drug-addictions, he does not give out any nasty evidence to prove it. He does not supply the readers the prerequisite information to draw conclusion. He uses several assumptions-just only assumptions- in order to prove his point. Its wrong, Its wrong and its wrong are just his objective ideas. We dont have other perspective views as well as number and statistics. The author tries to persuade on the ground of his idea, not on the fact or the determinate data. He uses a logical technique called induction-using observed set forth in order to reach his conclusion. When he said, its wrong the first-class honours degree time, he tended to lead the readers to the point that when he said its wrong again, we willingly agree with him. However, in his first point Its wrong to attempt to ease one crisis by reinforcing another he did not show any hard evidence to persuade us.
His assumption makes the readers suspect about his syllogisms. We dont have any jot to believe his word. Thus, when he comes to the last premises about the wrong policy about drug-addition, his points are still not legitimate because the first premises does not a fact or an obvious proof. Thus, his point that Clinton- policy about giving outside needles is fatally wrong has no evidence, experiment along with concrete proof. He makes the reader have another...
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment