Explore BrainMass
Share

Explore BrainMass

    Article Arguments

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    This posting identifies at least two arguments in each article:

    CLEAN NEEDLES BENEFIT SOCIETY
    USA Today
    Our view: Needle exchanges prove effective as AIDS counterattack.
    They warrant wider use and federal backing.
    Nothing gets knees jerking and fingers wagging like free needle-exchange
    programs. But strong evidence is emerging that they're working.
    The 37 cities trying needle exchanges are accumulating impressive
    data that they are an effective tool against spread of an epidemic now in its
    13th year.
    ? In Hartford, Conn., demand for needles has quadrupled expectations?
    32,000 in nine months. And free needles hit a targeted
    population: 55% of used needles show traces of AIDS virus.
    ? In San Francisco, almost half the addicts opt for clean needles.
    ? In New Haven, new HIV infections are down 33% for addicts in
    exchanges.
    Promising evidence. And what of fears that needle exchanges increase
    addiction? The National Commission on AIDS found no evidence. Neither
    do new studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
    Logic and research tell us no one's saying, "Hey, they're giving away
    free, clean hypodermic needles! I think I'll become a drug addict!"
    Get real. Needle exchange is a soundly based counterattack against an
    epidemic. As the federal Centers for Disease Control puts it, "Removing
    contaminated syringes from circulation is analogous to removing mosquitoes."
    Addicts know shared needles are HIV transmitters. Evidence shows
    drug users will seek out clean needles to cut chances of almost certain
    death from AIDS.
    Needle exchanges neither cure addiction nor cave in to the drug
    scourge. They're a sound, effective line of defense in a population at high
    risk. (Some 28% of AIDS cases are IV drug users.) And AIDS treatment costs
    taxpayers far more than the price of a few needles.
    It's time for policymakers to disperse the fog of rhetoric, hyperbole and
    scare tactics and widen the program to attract more of the nation's 1.2 million
    IV drug users.

    Essays for Analysis A-23
    We're a pragmatic society. We like things that work. Needle exchanges
    have proven their benefit. They should be encouraged and expanded.
    PROGRAMS DON'T MAKE SENSE
    Peter B. Gemma Jr.
    Opposing view: It's just plain stupid for government to sponsor dangerous,
    illegal behavior.
    If the Clinton administration initiated a program that offered free tires to
    drivers who habitually and dangerously broke speed limits?to help them
    avoid fatal accidents from blowouts?taxpayers would be furious. Spending
    government money to distribute free needles to junkies, in an attempt to
    help them avoid HIV infections, is an equally volatile and stupid policy.
    It's wrong to attempt to ease one crisis by reinforcing another.
    It's wrong to tolerate a contradictory policy that spends people's hardearned
    money to facilitate deviant behavior.
    And it's wrong to try to save drug abusers from HIV infection by perpetuating
    their pain and suffering.
    Taxpayers expect higher health-care standards from President Clinton's
    public-policy "experts."
    Inconclusive data on experimental needle-distribution programs is no
    excuse to weaken federal substance-abuse laws. No government bureaucrat
    can refute the fact that fresh, free needles make it easier to inject illegal
    drugs because their use results in less pain and scarring.
    Underwriting dangerous, criminal behavior is illogical: If you subsidize
    something, you'll get more of it. In a Hartford, Conn., needle-distribution
    program, for example, drug addicts are demanding taxpayer-funded needles
    at four times the expected rate. Although there may not yet be evidence of
    increased substance abuse, there is obviously no incentive in such schemes
    to help drug-addiction victims get cured.
    Inconsistency and incompetence will undermine the public's confidence
    in government health-care initiatives regarding drug abuse and the
    AIDS epidemic. The Clinton administration proposal of giving away needles
    hurts far more people than [it is] intended to help.

    Evaluate the arguments on both sides. Who has the stronger arguments,
    and why?
    Alternative assignment: Identify rhetorical devices and determine
    which author relies more heavily on them.
    Second alternative assignment: In the first essay, find as many arguments
    as you can that can be treated as categorical syllogisms. Set up a key,
    Selections 15A and 15B

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 9, 2019, 7:40 pm ad1c9bdddf
    https://brainmass.com/english-language-and-literature/language/article-arguments-125704

    Solution Preview

    As you identify your own arguments, please refer to these sample ideas as guides:

    1. The author advocates the use of distributing clean needles to combat the spread of HIV and to improve society. The quote, "CLEAN NEEDLES BENEFIT SOCIETY," verifies this argument.

    2. Needle distribution is an effective strategy in reducing AIDS among drug users. The quote, "Needle exchanges prove effective as AIDS counterattack," supports this hypothesis.

    Do the premises support the conclusions?

    If you argue yes, you may want to mention how the premises employ evidence from existing cities effectively involved in the plan. Please notice the quote, "the 37 cities trying needle exchanges are accumulating impressive data that they are an effective tool against spread of an epidemic now in its 13th year."

    The premises also utilize the strong reputations of widely respected health authorities and organizations such as "The National Commission on AIDS found no evidence. Neither
    do new studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association."

    However, if you want to argue that the premises are unreasonable, you might want to focus on how the sampling of merely 37 cities does not accurately depict the effectiveness since the United States is so vast; the premises do not take the entire nation into account.

    Are the premises reasonable?

    Due to the use of logic, ethos, and research, the premises seem to ...

    Solution Summary

    This solution lists arguments within the articles.

    $2.19