When evaluating a statement or an argument you must ensure that you do not let your emotions or personnel knowledge assist you in your outcome. Today we are going to use the four step method to break down three statements and determine if the statements valid or invalid. If any errors are found within the statements, then an alternative statement will be provided. Evaluating Arguments
When we take the statement “Nuclear power is a threat to world peace. Nuclear energy stations generate nuclear power. So nuclear energy stations are a threat to world peace.” and break it down to find out if it is legitimate using the four evaluating steps of an argument this is what we find. The argument here is that nuclear energy stations generate nuclear power. They are also stating that nuclear power is a threat of world peace. In the last part of the statement they are stating that since the nuclear power stations use nuclear technology to produce electricity then they are also a threat to world peace. The statement that deals with nuclear power being a threat to the world could not be supported by any credible resources online, but nuclear weapons being a threat to world peace is supported by many political figures and many renowned college professors they all agree that the threat is real (Martin E. Hellman).
The second part of the statement deals with nuclear stations generating nuclear power. Nuclear stations produce electricity by splitting the atoms of uranium which causes a chain reaction and turns water into steam that turns turbines creating electricity (world-nuclear.org). Uranium is the key mineral for creating nuclear based energy and also for producing nuclear grade weapons. If the nuclear plants are not producing nuclear weapons and they are using up the natural resource that is used to make nuclear weapons, then this statement is found to be illegitimate based on its faulty data reasoning. In order for the statement to legitimate it would need to read “Nuclear weapons are a threat to world peace.
Nuclear energy stations generate electricity through nuclear technology and there for are not a threat to world peace.” Research data shows that the statement had to be reworded to show that nuclear power plants do not contribute to the demise of world peace, but instead contribute twelve percent of all the worlds’ electricity. There have been minimum loss of life when dealing with nuclear plant accidents, but the accidents that were reported to not contribute towards the loss of world peace. Actually since the conception of nuclear power plants, there have only been 11 accounted deaths total worldwide (Wikipedia.com).
When we take the statement “It’s ridiculous to think that there will be fewer deaths if we ban handguns. Handguns don’t kill people; people kill people.” and break it down to find out if it is legitimate using the four evaluating steps of an argument this is what we find. The first part of the statement states that it’s ridiculous to think that doing away will handguns will result in fewer deaths. The second part of the statement is that hand guns do not, by themselves, kill people. The last part of the statement clearly states that people kill people. First we must examine whether it is ridiculous to think if handguns were banned would it reduce the number of deaths. After reviewing a research article posted by Harvard University the supporting data supports the statement. A study was done in the former USSR about their government introducing very strict gun control laws.
The law was so strict that almost no citizen owned any handguns (Kates/Mauser). After comparing the murder deaths in the former USSR to America, their rates of death rose to one hundred and fifty times the murders of America where handguns were not a closely monitored. Next we must review the statement handguns don’t kill people. After conducting research on the internet for an extensive amount of time, I was unable to ascertain any data that reported a handgun killing someone with human intervention. “When it comes to murders, people are the ultimate cause and guns are merely proximate causes” (Johnson, 2013). Based on the lack of information to contradict this statement I must conclude that it is factual. The last part of the statement is that people kill people. Through numerous articles I was able to find thousands of ways that humans kill humans. Whether with a screwdriver or with a car, humans will always have something that they can use to kill another human. I believe that this part of the statement is valid.
After reviewing the data and the context of the statement, I have concluded the statement is legitimate. The last statement that I am going to evaluate is “If an expectant mother drinks, smokes, takes drugs, or fails to get proper rest, she may damage her unborn child. Therefore, if an expectant mother does these things and her child is born with a defect or ailment that can be traced to them, the mother should face criminal charges”. The first part of the statement leads that mother drinking, smoking, taking drugs or not getting enough sleep may injure her unborn child. The second part of the statement is if the child is born with a defect or ailment that is caused by the before mentioned that the mother of the child should be charged with a crime. Studies have proven that the use of alcohol, drugs or cigarettes is a danger to an unborn child.
Drug use during pregnancy can affect the developing organs and limbs of the fetes. Cigarettes and alcohol are also known to cause such defects as a miscarriage, stillbirth, small size, low birth weight, premature birth, birth defects, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and drug-dependency in the infant (Healthline.com, 2012). After reviewing the first part of the statement I would have to say it is true. The second part of the statement talks about the mother should be criminally charged if the fetes is injured in any way that is related to the substance abuse or sleep deprivation.
The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C.A. § 5106g), as amended by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum: “Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation”; or “An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.” (childwelfare.gov, 2015). Therefor if a mother willingly partakes in any of the substances or deliberately deprives herself from rest, then she has committed child abuse. The second part of the statement would also be defined as true. I find the entire statement to be justified and true. Conclusion
Hopefully today you now understand a little more about how to evaluate a statement or argument and determine if it has any validity. Once you remove yourself from the deciding factors and allow only your valid data from your research answer the question, can you determine if a statement is valid or invalid.
Martin E. Hellman (2014) Defusing the Nuclear Threat. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://nuclearrisk.org/ World-nuclear.org (2015) How a Nuclear Reactor Makes Electricity. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://www.world-nuclear.org/Nuclear-Basics/How-does-a-nuclear-reactor-make-electricity-/ Wikipedia.org (2015) List of Nuclear Power Accidents by Country. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser (2001) Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? Retrieved on April 3, 2015 from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf David Kyle Johnson PH.D. (2013) Guns Don’t Kill People, People Do. Retrieved on April 3, 2015 from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/logical-take/201302/guns-don-t-kill-people-people-do Healthline.com (2012) Alcohol, Drugs and Babies. Do you need to worry? Retrieved on April 5, 2015 from http://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/alcohol-drugs#Overview1 Childwelfare.gov (2015) Child Abuse Definition. Retrieved on April 5, 2015 from https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/can/defining/federal/