This posting offers tips about how to answer a homestudy question.

2. Assignment: Argument Evaluation • Read Critical Thinking Appendix
1: Programs Don’t Make Sense (pp. A-22 – A-23) • Identify at
least two arguments in the article. Argument #1 Outline the premises and
conclusions of the argument . (1) Do the premises support the
conclusions? (2) Are the premises reasonable? Explain how you came to
your decision Argument #2 Outline the premises and conclusions of the
argument (1) Do the premises support the conclusions? (2) Are the
premises reasonable? Explain how you came to your decision APPENDIX #1
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.