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: The streets are overcrowded, and traffic is always congested; the schools are overcrowded, and new ones can’t be built fast enough (3) . We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city (4).
Argument: Yes
Conclusion: To decrease overcrowded populations in big cities, zonings law will decrease congestion in the city.
Additional Premises needed? The water supply for the people has decreased every year with droughts. Las Vegas has to turn to many out of state eater sources to fill the need of the people in Las Vegas. The over congested streets, are putting many blocks of the strip filled with trash that people throw on the streets. Schools cannot afford the supplies of new students incoming into k-12 schools in the LV school districts.
Identify any subarguments?: Arguments 1-3 are all independent that support the conclusion.
Good argument? It could be a better argument with more plausible clauses in the argument but it has a central idea to support the conclusion. Premises 2 could have been divided into more premises than cramming buildings and streets in the premises. 4 could use more depth on zoning laws in the city to understand what needs to be done.
This was a useful exercise because we broke down if it was a good argument and added more premises to make it a better argument. It helps me to understand how to use better arguments in daily routine.
No comments:
Post a Comment