Samplepaper.pdf

Creating a Sound Argument Workshop

Sample Paper

John Smith

University of Arizona Global Campus

PHI103 Informal Logic

Dr. Christopher Foster

Due: Day 7 of week 2

Step 1: Thesis: Marijuana is not safe to use.

Step 2: Premise 1: Marijuana can cause long-term damage to the brain.

Conclusion: Marijuana is not safe to use.

Step 3: Premise 2: Things that can cause long-term damage to the brain are not safe to use.

Step 4: This new premise (premise 2) appears to be true. The reasoning for this is that long-term brain damage is one of the worst types of injuries that a person can face (since brains do not recover). Anything that potentially causes one of the worst types of injury cannot be called safe to use.

A likely objection to this is that “safe” is a relative term. One has to weigh the benefits against the risks. The likelihood of long-term brain damage is quite low, whereas the benefits, at least in many cases, can be high. So, one could argue, marijuana is acceptably safe, for example, for medical use.

My response to this objection would be that, while there may be cases in which the benefits outweigh the risks, it is still not accurate to call it “safe.” There are many things that have potential benefits, but still do not qualify as “safe.” This should not be equated with saying that it should be illegal. Many pharmaceuticals have medical benefits, but as long as there is the potential for long term serious harm, they should not be called “safe” (without the risk of deceiving potential users of those products).

Step 5: Premise 1: Marijuana can cause long-term damage to the brain.

Premise 2: Things that cause long-term damage to the brain are not safe to use.

Conclusion: Marijuana is not safe to use.

Step 6: The argument is valid because it has a valid form, namely:

X does A

All things that do A are B

Therefore, X is B

I find the premises to be plausibly true as well. The disclaimer in step four clarifies that this does not necessarily mean that the substance should never be used, or that it should be illegal for

medical use, only that its use comes with significant risks. Given this clarification, I believe that the premises hold up as true. So, I believe I have a plausibly sound argument.

Step 7: The best objection to this argument would be that the risks for adults are minor. Marijuana is much safer than many pain killers, for example. So, while there are some risks, if a person has a medical condition that marijuana can treat, the level of dangerousness involved in the medically prescribed amount of marijuana can be considered acceptable. To call it unsafe, therefore, can be misleading and can be taken to imply things that it does not (like that marijuana should not be used medically). Therefore, one could argue that premise 2 is technically true, but misleading.