Analysis: I think that O’ Rielly does a wonderful job of Questioning Donald Trump in this particular interview. In my opinion he does a very thorough job of seeking Trump’s true interest and importance of this issue. The part of this argument that I would like to focus on occurs at the time of 0:19-1:30. Trump tries to discredit birth announcements,

From the Transcript:
Bill O’Reilly: we very early on did an investigation about Barack Obama’s birth certificate and factor found out that there were two announcements the week he was born. In both Honolulu newspapers saying that he was born. Okay. That is impossible to make happen if he had not been born in the hospital. So I just put the issue to bed. I said he was born in Honolulu the two newspaper documented it.
{more illustration as to why O’Rielly dismissed the issue}
Trump: Bill I grew up with wall street geniuses what they do in terms of fraud and how they change documents and I’ll tell you something if you notice those dates were three days later and here’s what I ask people
Trump: Who puts birth announcements in the newspaper?..... Here are two poor people a man and a woman with no money to have a baby… there’s announcements in the newspaper?
O’Rielly: The grandparents did it.
Trump: Nelson Rockefeller doesn’t put announcements in the newspaper.
O’Rielly: Sure there are Birth annocements all the time
Trump: I’ve never seen one
O’Rielly: Really
Trump: No
O’Rielly: They’re common

Summary; Bill O’Rielly conducted an early investigation finding supporting evidence that Barack Obama had to have been born in the United States. The two newspaper announcements published in the newspaper just three days after his birth caused O’Rielly to dismiss the notion that he may not have been born in the U.S: thus stating that it would have been impossible for him to have been born anywhere other than in the United States. Trump automatically tries to discredit the announcements. Trump does not produce hard evidence that President Barack Obama is not a citizen. He only makes accusations as to why there is a serious doubt for him that the President is a citizen but never specifically says Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
Formalizing the argument:
P1. Barack’s parents were poor and couldn’t put their announcements in the news papter.
P2. His grandparents did it, but Nelson Rockefeller didn’t put announcements in the news paper.
P3. I never seen a birth announcement
P4 President Barack Obama’s birth announcements are invalid
C. So therefore all birth announcements are invalid including President Barack Obama’s.

For the portion of the argument I chose I wanted to pinpoint the fact that Trump wants to discredit the birth announcements in both Honolulu newspapers because he claims that Barack Obama’s parents could not have put his birth announcements in the paper; Reason being because they were poor and that his grandparents couldn’t have had a reason to put them in the paper comparing them to Nelson Rockefeller (stating that he never put birth announcements in the newspaper). I feel that he was insinuating that because that people with money could not have put them in there either. Finally I also thought that when he was saying he has never seen a birth announcement so they don’t exist and therefore President Barack Obama’s birth announcements could not have been true.
This is a case of a Hasty Generalization Fallacy. Donald Trump is drawing a general conclusion about not only President Barack Obama’s birth announcements but all birth announcements. His conclusion says that Barack Obamas birth announcements are not valid and for that matter no birth announcements don’t exist because he has never seen one (and he does not understand why people put them in the newspaper).>

Beyerstein: Fat as Class War in Arizona

Background:

A blog post by Lindsay Beyerstein was submitted to a website called bigthink.com which presented an opposing side of Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer's decision to propose charging obese medicaid patients a $50 tax fee a year if they don't follow a doctor-supervised plan to slim down. Those who are obese would need to work with a primary-care physician to develop a plan to help them lose weight and also improve their health. The "fat fee" would also apply to smokers and diabetics. Arizona's officials believe that the fee would give people a reason to get healthy, and that it's a crucial part of a plan to save $500 million a year in Medicaid spending. Also if ratified, the money that is saved would revive coverage of organ transplants.Others, like Lindsay Beyerstein,who opposes the tax says the new tax would punish patients for conditions they can't always control.

Analysis:

Throughout this article, Lindsay Beyerstein asserts that the proposal of the “fat tax” on overweight medicaid patients is wrong because they can't afford it. Here I will formalize Lindsay Beyerstein's entire argument in premise-conclusion form.

Premise 1: Demanding that poor people slim down and charging them extra if they don't would be a

cruel and regressive tax.The goal isn't really to save money, or improve public health. The goal is to make government assistance as degrading as possible.

Premise 2:A diet-or-pay scheme is not sound public health policy. Diets, even medically supervised diets, don't reliably produce permanent weight loss. Furthermore, weight fluctuations may be even more dangerous than being steadily overweight.

Premise 3:Poverty is an independent risk factor for obesity. High-nutrient, low-calorie foods like fruits, vegetables, and lean meats cost a lot more than low-nutrient, low-calorie staples rich in flour, sugar, and fats.

Premise 4: Proposing that the poorest of the poor be made to pay even more because they can't afford to be thin is irrational. It costs a lot more than $50 to join gyms and keep up with diets.

Conclusion: Taxing the poor by being overweight is an unfair proposal that should not be ratified.

Lindsay Beyerstein presents factual claims supporting the reasons why many people are overweight. She mentions low nutrient diets that cost less than high-nutrient diets and also how medically supervised diets don't reliably produce permanent weight loss. Also given the fact that medicaid is a health care program for low-income people, I could understand why Lindsay centered her argument around the poor not being able to afford many of the things that may help one obtain weight loss. Although Beyerstein presented feasible points, the questioning of relevance in correspondence to Governor Brewer's proposal entails conflict.

In the first argument, which is the proposal of Governor Brewer to charge a $50 tax on overweight medicaid patients is merely to save money and to also raise money to revive coverage for organ donors. However Lindsay Beyerstein's argument suggests other wise. As you can infer by evaluating each premise made by Lindsay Beyerstein there is no relevance in regards of what Governor Brewer intended for this proposal to produce. Lindsay misinterprets Governor Brewer's request by suggesting that “ the goal isn't really to save money, or improve public health. The goal is to make government assistance as degrading as possible.” She also points out that Governor Brewer's proposal is demanding that the poorest of the poor to pay even more because they can't afford to be thin.

Quran-Burning Pastor Deflects Blame of Protests and Killings in Afghanistan

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/terry-jones-abc-news-bill-weir-transcript/story?id=13277067&page=2

Background:
In July 2010, Terry Jones, pastor of a church in Gainesville, Florida declared he would burn 200 Qurans on the 2010 anniversary of the devastating events on September 11. His declaration received much media attention, resulting in international outrage and pleas from world leaders to cancel the event. In early September 2010, He canceled the burning and promised to never burn a Quran. On March 20, 2011 Pastor Jones held a "trial of the Quran" in his church. Pastor Jones and jurors found the Quran to be “guilty” of “crimes against humanity”. Then the Quran was burnt in Jones' church. On April 1,2011, upon hearing the news, protesters in the northern Afghanistan, attacked the United Nations Assistance Mission, killing at least 30 people, including at least seven U.N. workers and injuring at least 150 people. Jones disclaimed any responsibility for the killings which resulted in 5 days of protests.

The following is an excerpt from a transcript from ABC News' Bill Weir's interview with Pastor Terry Jones on Jones' response to the United Nations saying their staffers were killed in Afghanistan during a violent protest over his Koran burning.

Weir: When you got news of today's deadly riots there in Afghanistan, what was the first thought that went through your head?

Jones: Yeah, yeah of course we were very saddened and devastated by that. It is of course a terrible thing anytime anyone is killed. Anytime someone's life is cut short through murder or even accident. I think it definitely does prove that there is a radical element of Islam. I believe we need to take this evidence, we need to take this action and those people and those countries should be held accountable. I believe the U.S. needs to stand up. I believe the UN needs to stand up to countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Muslim-dominated countries. They have been persecuting, killing Christians for generations.

Jones: I believe that it's time that we stand up and force them, encourage them to adapt human rights into their laws, into their constitution and that these types of actions should not be allowed.

Argument

In this portion of the interview Pastor Jones presents two arguments. One that concludes the fact that there is a radical element of Islam proven by the riots and killings of U.N. employees in Afghanistan.

P: U.N. employees in Afghanistan were killed during protests over Pastor Jones’ burning the Quran.

C: There is a radical element of Islam.

The other states:

P1: There is a radical element of Islam.

P2: They [Muslims] have been persecuting, killing Christians for generations.

C: The U.S. and the U.N. need to stand up to Muslim-dominated countries and force/encourage them to adapt human rights into their laws/constitution. These types of actions should not be allowed and those countries should be held accountable.

C2: Jones and his church put the Quran on trial then burnt it to bring awareness of this radical element of Islam. (Jones seems to be providing evidence for this conclusion throughout the interview, but he never directly states it wholly.)

Ambiguity

First, I believe we should try to identify what Pastor Jones means when he states that there is a "radical element of Islam". Several times during this interview, Jones uses the term "radical Islam" or says things like wanting to, " make an awareness of the radical element of Islam." The end of this interview sheds more light on Jones' definition of this ambiguous term.

Weir: But here's the ironic part to your argument there [cross talk]. The timing of this comes at a time of unprecedented awakening across the Arab world--people are motivated by what you are talking about, democracy, freedom of speech, taking to the streets--not a religious movement, purely a democratic, populist movement, but now this incident--and the headlines will be that this is a result of your actions--may help derail that very thing that you're asking for. Doesn't that strike you as ironic timing?

Jones: I don't think it will do that. As I said, I believe that it is time to raise that awareness. it is time that moderate Muslims who desire to have freedom of speech, freedom of religion--that is truly going on in those countries. It is not an opportunity for the Muslim brother hood or some other radical group to take over. And we think that even moderate Muslims could stand up and they could speak out against Jihad, against Sharia, against the radical element of Islam.

From the end of this interview, we see that Jones himself defines the term "radical element of Islam" or "radical Islam" as two different things:

1) radical Muslim groups

2) radical elements of the religion, Islam, itself (laws and beliefs)

In the beginning of his ending response when he talks about Moderate Muslims, Jones identifies this term as Muslim radical groups who are followers of Islam. However when Jones mentions Jihad and Sharia at the end of his response, he implicates that he defines this term as literally there being a radical element of the religion, Islam, itself. Jihad and Sharia Law are both Islamic terms found in the Quran and they also have differing interpretations in meaning or are followed differently by all Muslims.

Symptoms
(Analysis of Fallacies)

Now, we are going to analyze Jones' second argument which consists of several fallacies. First, he commits the fallacy of ambiguity, equivocation. Above we already established that Jones' presents two different interpretations of the term "radical element of Islam". In the premises of Jones' argument, he presents evidence in support of the first meaning of the term "radical element of Islam". However in his conclusion, he mainly focuses on the second interpretation of the ambiguous term which causes his argument to be invalid and fallacious.

Second, he commits the fallacy of weak induction, hasty generalization. Jones provides evidence in both arguments that there are radical Muslim groups and countries that have persecuted and killed Christians; however, he implies in his conclusion that all Muslim-dominated countries have done these things and should be held accountable.

Lastly, he commits the fallacy of presumption, begging the question. Jones tries to validate his conclusion by providing evidence that relates to the conclusion but it does not entirely and logically supply support for the conclusion. His argument begs the question "Does the fact that some radical Muslim groups and Muslim-dominated countries have persecuted and killed Christians for generations gives the U.N. and U.S. the right to hold all Muslim-dominated countries accountable?" Over 1.5 billion people are followers of Islam and approximately fifty countries are predominantly Muslim.

Diagnosis

Pastor Terry Jones' arguments are plagued with several fallacies in this interview. He commits the more obvious fallacy of hasty generalization and fallacy of ambiguity (equivocation). In this case, he also commits the more subtle fallacy of presumption (begging the question). So due to these symptoms, this argument is in Critical Condition.

Limbaugh: Dems Are "Unwilling To Pay The Troops But Want To Make Sure Abortionists Continue To Get Paid"

Background:

Rush Limbaugh, host of “The Rush Limbaugh Show”, discusses how the Democrats nearly brought about the total widespread shutdown of the national government over the issue of abortion and Planned Parenthood. In the following audio clip taken from Media Matters for America and from the April 13^th edition of “The Rush Limbaugh Show”; Rush points out that according to the budget debate at the White House, President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were poised to shutdown the government before any type of defunding would befall Planned Parenthood. One of the tactics they were willing to use to accomplish their goal was to withhold monetary funds from oversea soldiers. Below is the clip from April 13.

Analysis:

From information gathered from the audio clip, Rush poses some very intriguing questions about the tactics the Democrats used and the position they take toward abortion and Planned Parenthood in order to get what they wanted. About 1:45 into the clip is where the argument begins. Below is the transcript from the clip:

Rush: “Here we had Obama and Harry Reid locked into a position. They were willing to shutdown the government and not pay our soldiers on the battlefield in order to keep the money spickets flowing for the abortionists at Planned Parenthood.”

Rush: “And the Republicans didn’t think they could win that P.R. fight? Given the election results of November, where is it written that we can’t win a P.R. fight with a bunch of people who are unwilling to pay the troops but want to make sure that abortionists continue to get paid? That’s what the fight was about last week. (Pause for dramatic effect) Elmer Fudd could win that fight! (Another long dramatic pause) Elmer Fudd could win it!”

From the clip and accompanying transcript, Rush points out that Reid’s position does include the funding of abortions at Planned Parenthood. Rush also raises the question as to why Republicans backed out of the debate to stop funding to Planned Parenthood for abortions in order to reach a mutual decision on the budget.

So what exactly is Harry Reid’s position on funding abortion at Planned Parenthood? The answer is simple. Senator Harry Reid would rather keep funds flowing to Planned Parenthood than to have funds pulled from the organization but NOT for the reasons of abortion. Further research into the agenda of Harry Reid and the Democrats revealed that Planned Parenthood receives funding through a provision known as Title X, but the currency is not and cannot be for abortion purposes. Reid was actually against a government shutdown, as a shutdown would affect not only the troops, but also the country as a whole. Reid went on record, according to CBS News, by stating that he and fellow Democrats were unwilling to move on the subject of funding Planned Parenthood, that is was important to have access to these services when that time arose. Now, it is clear that Reid’s full intention regarding funding to Planned Parenthood stems from his personal campaign regarding his family; as in his wife, daughter, and granddaughters; from a statement released on April 8, 2011 from Senator Harry Reid’s website.

So what is the conclusion of this argument and the supporting factors?

(P) Senator Reid strongly favors the funding of Planned Parenthood.

(P) Senator Reid refuses to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, because young girls and women have a right to have access to the health services provided.

(P) Senator Reid agrees that a government shutdown would harm not only the soldiers, but also the economy.

Therefore,

(C) Planned Parenthood should continue to receive funding in order to provide accessible health services to all females and that a government shutdown would be detrimental to the American public.

From this audio clip, it is clear that Rush Limbaugh is committing a Straw Man fallacy. The intentions of Reid were to continue to keep funding to Planned Parenthood for the welfare of young girl’s and women in America to have access to screenings and testing, not for abortion purposes. Clearly, Rush has twisted the intentions that Reid had planned by targeting the abortion side of Planned Parenting and neglecting that they offer a wider scope of services. Yes, Planned Parenthood offers the choice of abortion, but in accordance with Title X, abortions cannot be entitled to government funds. Based on the information obtained, this argument is in moderate condition.

pastor Douglas Wilson: Is there a God?

Above is a debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens and pastor Douglas Wilson regarding God's existence, hosted in the JoyBehar show, by Moxnews. This post will focus on pastor Douglas arguments that there is a God.

When asked to provide a case for God, that God exists [0:48], Douglas said:

“One of the thing I would like to do is ask about where your starting point is. Who has the burden of proof? So does an automobile [Bill] have the burden of proof of demonstrating there was a Henry Ford or there wasn't.”

[...]
Then, he concludes

“I believe the one who denies the self-evident fact that God exists and created the world. I believe that that is the one who carries the burden of proof.”

Understanding that he has implied some premises and a conclusion, below is my rearrangement of his argument.

The argument above has committed Petitio Principii (begging the question) and Appeal to Ignorance.

Douglas uses the conclusion from the Henry Ford case [Premise 2a] as supporting evidence for God case. I mistakenly thought this was a Weak Analogy since God is much different from a human; however, the fallacy didn't occur. Based on the argument, both God and Henry share two similar attributes: their existences being challenged and their self-evident existences. Henry third attribute: whoever challenges his existences carries the burden of proof, is causally related to the two preceding attributes. Thus, this third attribute can be safely applied to the God case, providing that the two preceding attributes are also true for God.

However, this argument does commit Begging for the question. For the analogy between Henry Ford and God to take place, Douglas must establish that God obviously exists [Premise 2b], which is the ultimate conclusion of the argument. This premise is begging for the question: how do you know that God exists. A conclusion can never be, and must never be a premise of itself “Without supporting reasons or evidence, the argument proves nothing. Yet most people who are predisposed to believe the conclusion are likely to accept the argument as a good one“ [Quoted from aplia online Philosophy textbook, chapter 3-4]

Another fallacy this argument has committed is Appeal to Ignorance. Even if Premise 3a and Premise 3b are true, proving that the atheists failed their burden to disprove God, we still can not safely conclude that God does exist. The absence of evidence shall not be treated as the evidence.

Based on the two fallacies, I conclude that this is a bad argument.

Jalen Rose Shouldn't Take Back 'Uncle Tom' Jab

In DeWayne Wickham's article, "Jalen Rose needs to take back 'Uncle Tom' jab" (written on April 2, 2011), he attacks a statement made by former University of Michican/NBA star Jalen Rose on a special ESPN documentary about the Fab Five. The Fab Five documentary tells the story of five freshmen, in which Jalen Rose was one of them, who took the University of Michigan's basketball team to two consecutive NCAA title games. Rose, an executive producer and co-narrator of the documentary, made a statement about how he felt about one of his rival teams, Duke University, at the time he played for the University of Michigan Wolverines. While reminiscing about his past experiences and feelings about Duke University's basketball team, Rose stated: "For me, Duke was personal. I hated Duke and I hated everything I felt Duke stood for. Schools like Duke didn't recruit players like me. I felt like they only recruited black players who were Uncle Toms." This statement alone sparked alot of controversy in the media, and writers and bloggers began attacking Jalen Rose's statement. One to name is DeWayne Wickham. In his article, he attacked Rose's statement by saying:

"I wish Jalen Rose hadn't said that. I wish he'd "man up" and take back the ugly thing he said about Grant Hill..."

Wickham's argument is that Jalen Rose shouldn't have made the statement at all and should take it back. He also refers to an article that Grant Hill (current NBA and former Duke University star who played against and defeated Rose's Fab Five team in the 1992 title game) published in the New York Times that responded to Rose's statement, in which Hill took defensively and attacked as well. Wickham's article goes on to acknowledge that Rose did in fact offer an explanation about his statement by saying that was how he felt about the black players who played for Duke back when he was playing in college and that is not how he feels about them today. Despite Rose's explanation of the statement, Wickham still argued that Rose's explanation was not good enough. He feels that Rose needs to admit that he was wrong to have felt that way about the Duke players in the past. So to get a better understanding of Wickham's article, here is his argument structure broken down:

- Premise #1: I wish Jalen Rose hadn't said that. I wish he'd "man up" and take back the ugly thing he said about Grant Hill.

- Premise #2: Hill, whose response to the documentary was published in The New York Times, said Rose seemed to be saying black athletes from two-parent families who went to Duke were lackeys for whites -- which is what the term "Uncle Tom" has come to mean.

- Premise #3: The document's characterization of Duke's players was "a sad and somewhat pathetic turn of events." Hill wrote.

- Conclusion: Even worse than that, it is a message to young blacks that Rose needs to not just take back, but also denounce.

DeWayne Wickham says that Jalen Rose should take back the statement that he made in the Fab Five documentary because he feels that the statement sends a negative message to young blacks and paints the wrong picture in their minds of what black people who attend/play for Duke University, or any other prestigious colleges, are. Even though Rose's statement used a harsh description for Duke's players, that is besides the point. He was speaking about how he felt in past tense, making Wickham's argument a "straw-man" fallacy for the simple fact that he mischaracterized Rose's statement and attacked it. Every word in Rose's statement is in past tense, implying that it is not his current stand. With that said, Jalen Rose shouldn't have to take back what he said because as Wickham even acknowledged in his article, Rose explained that his statement was about how he felt as a young person, not how he feels today. Therefore, Wickham's argument is in critical condition.

Is it better to be a liberal or a conservative?

This argument was attributed to on Wednesday April 14, 2011 by THE ONE; an active Bolger on sodahead.com. The argument gives the view point of a conservative. The full argument presents eleven examples of how individuals make different decisions regarding various situations in life when they are conservative verses being liberal. To fully understand the argument it can be rewritten as follows.

Tolerant Conservative/Non Tolerant Liberal

Premise 1: Instead of being a liberal and wondering who will take care of them when they are down and out, conservatives are tolerant, happy and better their situation.

Premise 2: Liberals see themselves as victims in need of government protection instead of independent successful and tolerant like conservatives.

Premise3: Liberals shut down everyone they do not like instead of tolerating them like conservatives.

Premise 4: Conservative non believers tolerate any mention of God and choose not to go to church while liberals want the mention of God to be silenced.

Happier Conservative/Non Happy Liberal

Premise 5: A conservative is happier than a liberal when he slips and falls in a store.

Premise 6: His happiness allows him to get up, laugh at himself and be humbly embarrassed instead of grabbing his neck, moaning like he is in labor and trying to sue like liberals do.

Premise 7: A conservative is more happy and tolerant enough to forward this to his friend and laugh instead of deleting it like an offended liberal would do.

Conclusion: Since conservatives are happier and more tolerant, it is better to be a conservative than a liberal.

THE ONE continuously attributes the part to the whole. Attributing the part to the whole is a composition fallacy. In premise two the arguer attributes the feeling of being a victim and wanting government protection to all liberals. Part of the Liberal group may feel like victims and may need government protection, but part of the group does not constitute for the whole group. The same can be applied to the idea of liberals shutting down everyone they do not like. Some liberals may indeed shut down everyone they do not like, but all liberals may not feel that way. THE ONE continues to attribute actions and feelings of part of the liberal group to the entire liberal group as he gives examples of situations that conservatives and liberals may be involved in.

Even if THE ONE had taken a sample of thirty liberals who had been involved in the various situations given in his premise, he could not take the sample of liberals and make a claim about the entire population of liberals. This would have caused THE ONE to commit a hasty generalization fallacy. After taking a sample of thirty liberals, THE ONE could argue that Part of the liberal group is less tolerant and less happy, so it may be better to be a conservative. It is always unhealthy to attribute a part to a whole. Until the part has been applied to the whole properly this article will remain in critical condition. The full argument of THE ONE was not presented here, and the argument was paraphrased and put into premise conclusion format.

Billy's request for more death

http://speakout.com/petitions/1274.html

In 2011 the same question of whether the death penalty is a good form of capital punishment still dominates as one of the top arguments among the people. In September of 2001 Billy Fould Driftwood from Taxes decided to voice his argument in favor of the death penalty in the form a petition on “Speakout.com” in hopes of making a political change. After reading the short petition entitled “The death Penalty is a Good thing that needs to be used more often”, I found the author may have been confused on what platform he wanted to take in defense of his conclusion. In his argument you can hear Billy’s frustration in the tone of the paragraph. Billy’s argument states good premises that should make the reader want to move to action by signing the petition. Billy states in the beginning that the death penalty is a great way to help keep the murder rate down. Billy also expresses in the argument, the death penalty should be used more to save the tax payers thousands of dollars.

Now i understand Billy’s sincere feelings toward increasing the usage of the death penalty, but i think the premises he chose, put together, are building a week argument. Lets take a moment to analyze the statements.

P) The fact remains that there are too many murders a year.

P) The murder rate will be lowered if the penalty was a real threat for criminals.

P) The crime rate stayed the same after the death penalty was re-instated.

As you can see the third premise does not follow the others and weakens this portion of the argument. Even though i pointed out a weak premise, I think Billy’s goal is very clear here. Billy’s goal is to show the people how this may be a benefit to them if they sign the petition. After I started reading, I thought about being the next person murdered if i didn’t take action. I also thought about other bad results that could also happen if i don’t take action. The consequences being, the murders may never stop, and there is a chance the murders may actually increase. Billy wants this to be something personal to his readers. Billy then goes on to list more good premises to support using the death penalty more often.

P) In taxes it cost 86 dollars for the state to kill someone.

P) In taxes it cost 30,000 dollars a year to keep a criminal alive.

P) The tax payer should not pay to keep criminal alive.

P) The tax payer should be saved money.

C) The death penalty is not used enough.

In this final portion of the argument, Billy makes very good points to support his conclusion. Billy starts once again with sparking the individuals’ interest with something everyone is familiar with, paying taxes and money. The subject of money is a topic that most individuals, companies, and the government find extremely important. Even with differences of race, origin and religion, we all have the same love for money. Billy hones in on this love by showing how our own money can be affected if we don’t increase the usage of the death penalty. Its like a sales pitch for those people that may be religious, or a person that lets their morals and values lead them in their decision making. Even as a sale pitch, the argument is structured with good premises that support the conclusion.

The problem with Billy’s argument is, some of the premises don’t follow the main idea Billy made of “The death penalty is not used enough”. Actually one premise makes it invalid. When Billy adds the statement, “in other states the crime rate did not change”, he leaves the idea open that his theory of increasing use of the death penalty may not work in our state either. The additional premises could also vaguely support a different conclusion. Billy unintentionally may give the idea he wants to help balance the state budget by carrying out death sentences at a faster rate. No, this is not what Billy openly said, but he put so many ideas on the tabel thinking they all support this one idea. The argument should not imply more then one conclusion. Billy tries to add more information that he thinks will help his main conclusion but really winds up weakening his argument. Because Billy takes this approach, the argument clearly has a fallacy of “Missing the point”. Billy should have continued listing true statements that were geared toward keeping the same conclusion, even at the very end of the argument. In order to make this into a healthy argument, Billy would have to replace some of the premises with other statements that support the original conclusion of the argument. Because so much replacement need to be done to make this a healthy argument, I diagnose this argument as Critical Condition.

The HOPE Scholarship: Keep state's future in mind amid cuts

On March 4, 2011 an article was published by Mr. Andre Jackson in The Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) concerning budget cuts for HOPE scholars and Pre-K students. The article can be found at the following web site, http://www.ajc.com/opinion/the-hope-scholarship-keep-861299.html. Mr. Jackson reported views on behalf of the Editorial Board of the AJC. Where he cautions the General Assembly to think about all of the students this budget cut is going to affect not only now, but the students in the future. Denying students an education is ultimately going to take a toll on the state. Students who cannot afford nor obtain financial aid here will begin to move away to other states where they can obtain financial aid and become educated. Educated minds can attract better paying jobs that enrich communities so other states would benefit instead of Georgia. The Pre-K program will have their class time reduced by one-third under this budget cut. Early childhood education should remain a high priority, because teaching young children at an early age reduces the expenses of remedial work later on. It is important that the State of Georgia continue to invest in their students education, because they are our future.

The HOPE scholarship was introduced by Georgia’s former Governor Zell Miller, its stipulations were to earn a grade-point average of 3.0 and the state would pay your tuition at any state schools. Supporters for the scholarship wanted to provide a way for Georgia students who were willing to work hard and wanted to go to college. Therefore they formulated a way for them to attain their dreams, by funding the HOPE Scholarship. The scholarship has been “down sized” because the lottery proceeds has not been able to keep up with increase of students and the cost of tuition. Now in order to be fully covered by HOPE a student’s grade-point average has to be at least a 3.7 or better, which cuts out a lot of students because not everyone is capable of meeting that criteria.

The argument commits a fallacy of relevance, and to be exact the argument is a direct approach to “appeal to the people”. Mr. Jackson’s argument reaches out to all Georgia residents, (which is a large group of people), informing them about the cut backs on the HOPE scholarship and Pre-K program. Mr. Jackson is trying to win acceptance for his conclusion by playing on the crowd’s emotions. The argument proceeds to give examples of how this will bring a negative affect to the state. Georgia’s college students may consider attending out of state schools which would lower the college graduation rate for the state. Most students are more likely to obtain a job where they earn their degree. If this happens it will cause a decrease in the state’s economy. Georgia could remain at a low level for education and expenses for remedial work could still be high, since early childhood education has been reduced. Many students of modest or meager means will not be able to afford college tuition causing a lack of well educated people in the future. Below are the premises and the conclusion of this argument.

Premise 1: One risk of moving to a system where tuition award levels will be set each year is that Georgia’s best students might seek more predictable financial aid packages in other states.

Premise 2: The general Assembly can help in this regard by keeping budget cuts to the state’s colleges and universities as small as possible in coming fiscal years.

Premise 3: Lawmakers must remain mindful of the powerful advantages of early childhood education, starting young children on the right path reduces the expense of remedial work later on.

Conclusion: As the Gold Dome files down HOPE, legislators should keep our future as much in mind as the present.

I believe budget cuts should not be made towards the education of people who are trying to better themselves in life. Why should people be penalized for making an effort to improve themselves? In addition, in the long run the state will earn more money than what was spent sending people to school because the more money people make, the more they spend which means a surplus in Georgia’s economy. Not cutting back will also help boost Georgia’s education rate.