Planning an Argument Paper
-
Upload
idefeo -
Category
Health & Medicine
-
view
1.987 -
download
3
description
Transcript of Planning an Argument Paper
PLANNING AN ARGUMENT PAPERDrunk Driving
TOPICS ALREADY COVERED THROUGH PAST TWO PAPERS
Drunk Driving: The Extent
Effects of Drunk Driving: Beyond the Accident
POSSIBLE THESIS Drunk driving is wrong,
irresponsible, and wastes many lives.
In order to reduce drunk driving in the United States, we need tougher legislation, better enforcement, and a higher rate of conviction and incarceration.
Drunk driving rates will not decrease until there is cooperation between legislators, law enforcement, and judges.
MY THESIS WINNER
In order to reduce the rate of drunk driving in the United States, we need tougher legislation, better enforcement, and a higher rate of conviction and incarceration.
OUTLINE – THE THREE MAIN POINTS
Tougher legislation will act as a deterrent to people considering driving after drinking.
Better enforcement such as giving
arresting officers the ability to confiscate licenses on the spot
will discourage people from driving
drunk.
Forcing the judicial system to
incarcerate instead of offering probation for drunk driving will
send a clear message to not drink
and drive.
OUTLINE – THE SUPPORTING POINTS (1)
• Fewer people drive drunk in countries where drunk driving laws are strict – Sweden and Norway are examples.
• There are more drunk driving accidents in those countries where there are few or less harsh drunk driving laws – Some African countries are examples.
Tougher legislation
will act as a deterrent to
people considering
driving after
drinking.
OUTLINE – THE SUPPORTING POINTS (2)
• States where officers can confiscate licenses on the spot until the hearing have reduced drunk driving.
• Sobriety check points near places that cater to drinkers should be allowed without prior notification through the media.
Better enforcement
such as giving arresting
officers the ability to
confiscate licenses on the
spot will discourage people from
driving drunk.
OUTLINE – THE SUPPORTING POINTS (3)
• Second time offenders should not be offered probation before judgment.
• A system of penalties should be created and universally enforced.
Forcing the judicial system to incarcerate
instead of offering
probation to drunk driving
will send a clear message
to not drink and drive.
GOOD ARGUMENTS ARE BALANCED
What are possible objections to each of these main points of the outline?
1. Tougher legislation2. Better enforcement3. Judicial conviction
GOOD ARGUMENTS ARE BALANCED
Possible objection: One person wrote about the
inability of people to measure their own intoxication levels and that the strict law in California is too harsh because judging one’s level of intoxication is complex and difficult. (http://www.cockeyed.com/science/breathalyzer/breathalyser01.shtml)
How I would refute: Regardless of how complex measuring
intoxication levels are, people should practice reasonable drinking and adhere to the guidelines given out for time, amount, weight, and height. And when in doubt, just don’t drink and drive.
1
Tougher legislation
GOOD ARGUMENTS ARE BALANCED
Objection: Some people claim that the
breathalyzer is not accurate enough in judging one’s level of intoxication – blood samples are more reliable. (http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Drivingissues/1104284869.html ).
How I would refute: Law enforcement uses more than
just the results of a breathalyzer test in determining whether someone is too intoxicated to drive. A person will not be convicted simply on a breathalyzer test result.
2
Better enforceme
nt
GOOD ARGUMENTS ARE BALANCED
Objection: Some people claim that
harsh penalties like incarceration for the first offense is too harsh – it disrupts families and can result in people losing their sources of income. (http://www.blog.duiattorney.com/)
Refutation: Tougher penalties are
necessary. One time of driving drunk can result in the death of an innocent driver.
Judicial conviction
BUILD YOUR ARGUMENT WITH DETAILS
Thesis
Main Point 1
Supporting Detail 1.1
Supporting Detail 1.2
Likely Objection & Refutation
Main Point 2
Supporting Detail 2.1
Supporting Detail 2.2
Likely Objection & Refutation
Main Point 3
Supporting Detail 3.1
Supporting Detail 3.2
Likely Objection & Refutation