Critical Thinking

Standard form:

1. It is so obviously true that pot is something you shouldn't use that only a pothead like you wouldn't see it.

2.1 Using pot turns you to a degenerate gun crazy delinquent "DGCD"

2.2 You don't want to be a DGCD

2. You should not use pot.

C.C: Having a hard life causes you to become a DGCD.

3.1. There are lots of people who had a hard life but didn't do pot.

3.2. People who had a hard life time and didn't do pot, didn't become DGCD

3. If you don't do pot you won't become a DGCD.

4.1. Potheads can't hold jobs.

4.2.1. Pot is a part of your stupid lifestyle.

4.2. You are a pothead.

4. You are not a person who can hold a job.

5.1. We don't want gang crime to explode in this town.

5.2.1. Pot use causes all gang crime.

C.C: Legalization could reduce gang crime.

5.2.2.1. DGCDs join gangs.

5.2.2.2.1. Pot use leads to having more DGCDs.

5.2.2.2.2. Legalization leads to an increase in the pot use.

5.2.2.2. Legalization leads to having more DGCDs.

5.2.2. Legalization leads to having more people joining gangs.

5.2. Either we crack down on potheads like you or gang crime will explode

in this town.

5. We should crack down on potheads.

6.1. Instead of doing pot normal people drink and smoke.

C.C: Drinking and smoking are harmful.

6.2.1.1. My drinking does not hurt anybody else.

6.2.1.2. You can't legislate morality.

6.2.1. Alcohol's use should not be prohibited.

6.2.2.1. People who say smoking is not safe are Nazis.

6.2.2.2. The connection between cigarettes and cancer has not been

proven.

6.2.2. I say cigarettes are safe.

6.2. Drinking and smoking are safe.

6. You should be like normal people

7.1. If pot wasn't destructive then it wouldn't be illegal.

7.2. Pot is illegal.

C.C: Pot is beneficial for medical reasons.

7.3.1.1. I drink moderately.

C.C: You don't look healthy.

7.3.1.2.1. You can't say that or I disown you.

7.3.1.2. I am healthy.

7.3.1. Pot is unlike alcohol, which is safe if taken moderately.

7.3. Pot is always destructive.

7. Pot is destructive to mind and morals.

Categorical arguments:

* 4.1. Potheads are not people who can hold jobs. (Universal negation "E")

4.2. You are a pothead. (Universal affirmation "A")

C: You are not a person who can hold a job. (Universal negation "E")

Ð'* Since the middle term (pothead) is the subject of 4.1. and 4.1. is an "E" statement, middle term is distributed; Therefore the argument obeys the rule #1 which demands a distributed middle term.

Ð'* Since the major term (you) is a subject of an "E" statement and the major term (a person who can hold a job) is the predicate of an "E" statement, both the major and minor terms are distributed in the conclusion. However, since the minor term is also the subject of 4.2. which is an "A" statement, it is distributed in the premises as well. Likewise the major term is the predicate of 4.1. , an "E" statement, so it is also distributed in the premises; Therefore the argument obeys rule #2 which demands that any term distributed in the conclusion be distributed in the premises.

Ð'* Since 4.1. is an "E" statement (therefore a negation) and 4.2. is an "A" statement (therefore an affirmation) the premises contain one negation. Since the conclusion is an "E" statement it contains one negation. Therefore the argument obeys rule #3 which demands that the number of negations in the premises equal the number of them in conclusion.

It's a valid categorical argument since it obeys the three rules.

* 5.2.2.2.1. Pot use leads to having more DGCDs. (Universal affirmation)

5.2.2.2.2. Legalization leads to an increase in the pot use. (Universal affirmation)

5.2.2.2. Legalization leads to having more DGCDs. (Universal affirmation)

Ð'* Since the middle term (pot use) is the subject of 5.2.2.2.1.