Analysis of an argument samples

[KrishnaKrishnan]

Hi, It would be great in case you could provide me an input on these analysis.

 

Thanks

 

Sample 1

 

Over the past few years, baseball officials have come to the realization that it is

impossible to entirely eradicate performance-enhancing drugs. Despite stringent

testing measures, many players continue to use amphetamines, steroids, and other

banned substances to improve their performance on the diamond. In light of this

failure, some players have demanded that the commissioner of baseball simply

allow all players to make use of these substances under medical supervision.

According to these players, allowing performance-enhancing drugs will eliminate

cheating and ensure that training regimens are safe.

Analysis

This writer in this argument states the demand by the baseball players to legalise the use of performance-enhancing drugs on the premise that this would eliminate cheating and ensure that training regimens are safe. This argument fails to take a stand.

Firstly, the drugs like amphetamines, steroids and others have been banned owing to the negative impact of these substances on an individual’s health. Often sportsmen carelessly avoid the permissible intakes of such drugs which can lead to disastrous health conditions. Also, many a times, these drugs could be addictive and thus, could cripple an individual’s metabolism. Allowing these drugs would be a spreading a negative message to the public.

Secondly, the public that often idolizes these sportsmen might be influenced by their performance and partake these drugs. Legalizing these banned drugs would encourage such behavior.

Thirdly, since time immemorial sports have been a means to test the actual performance and endurance of an individual or a group and to enhance these levels by partaking drugs works against this basic idea. Legalizing these drugs would mean testing test subjects, in this case sportsmen on drugs, for individual drug’s efficacy and potency.

Fourthly, the argument stating that the intake of these drugs would make training regimens safer is not true. This argument is not stated with any evidence or experiments.

A better way to convince the readers could have been to site evidence in favor of the writer’s argument and to furnish statistical studies, if any, in favor of the same.

Sample #2

When drivers visit a state office to renew their licensure, they are not tested on the

road or on the basic signs and procedures of driving. A new safety commission has

declared that in order to reduce accidents on the road, drivers should be required to

pass a comprehensive driving test every time they seek to renew their driver’s

license. They also argue that individuals over the age of 60 should be forced to

provide permission from a doctor in order to maintain their licensure.

 

Analysis

The article suggests that the new safety commission has declared that all drivers should be made to pass a comprehensive driving test every time they renew their driving license. It is also argued that individuals above the age of sixty should provide doctor’s permission in order to maintain their license. This argument takes a stand.

Firstly, after an individual obtains a driver’s license, often the individual fails to keep up with various traffic regulations. Also, often drivers get into a careless attitude of ignoring traffic rules. Testing these drivers, again while extending the same, would ensure that the drivers keep traffic regulations at the forefront of their mind after they receive their license the first time.

Secondly, individuals above sixty tend to have certain diseases like cardiomyopathy which increase the chances of accidents while at wheel. Obtaining permissions from their doctors decreases the chance of such people being reissued licenses thus decreasing the chances of accidents.

Thirdly, as rules and regulations for issuing license have become stringent over time, rivers who have received license twenty to forty years ago need to be retested to confirm that they can adhere to the present standards and regulations of driving. Hence, this practice, if adopted, might help in standardizing the driving abilities of a larger population and hence reduce chances of accidents.

Fourthly, often an individual might have obtained a license while having a 20/20 vision but over time might have lost the same due to external or genetic factors. Ensuring such retests while reissuing the licenses ensures that such drivers are not provided licenses again.

This argument has a few negative points too. It does not elucidate any events/ accidents which might support the claim. Also the writer does not include any study/statistics comparing the accidents caused by drivers whose licenses are reissued with testing against drivers whose licenses are issues after testing.

Sample #3

 

According to the author of a recent editorial, most of the problems in the United

States are a consequence of the national dependence on oil. Oil consumption is

expensive, damaging to the environment, and requires the United States to do

business with some unsavory regimes. The United States should therefore impose

strict gas-mileage requirements on automobiles, effective immediately. Although

this would pose some temporary problems for the economy, in the long run it would

be the best solution to American oil addiction.

Analysis

The above argument states that United States should impose strict gas mileage curb on automobiles. The reasons stated for this are that oil is expensive, damaging the environment and requires the United States to do some business with some unsavory regimes. The argument does not take a stand.

Firstly, reducing oil consumption by curbing mileage on automobiles would pose paralyzing restraint on the public that depends on four wheelers for everyday travelling purposes.

Secondly, there are alternatives to the Oil consumption problem especially when it comes to oil driven cars which can be dealt with by using electric cars or solar powered cars. Instead of investigating these methods, the author directly concentrates on posing restrain on the amount of Oil used by automobiles. Investigating such methods and adopting the same would take time, resources and investment in order to make a smooth transition.

Thirdly, slashing the oil import from other countries would in turn immediately affect the foreign policy with these regimes, torpedoing States towards a cold war with these nations. This would go against the reason for which these curbs are to be introduced.

Also, the problems of controlling pollution etc can be controlled presently by using certain emitters which could reduce the expulsion of the same. These methods have not been explored in this article. Also usage of statistics considering the gross capita expenditure on Oil etc would make this article more convincing and provide an outlook into the gravity of the situation.