Question

Please read and answer the question below.

Quelling? ?Violence? ?in? ?Our? ?Country

One? ?only? ?has? ?to? ?turn? ?to? ?social? ?media? ?or? ?the? ?news? ?to? ?conclude? ?we? ?have? ?a? ?major? ?problem? ?in? ?our country? ?with? ?human? ?violence.? ?? ?It? ?seems? ?like? ?every? ?day? ?we? ?read? ?in? ?the? ?paper? ?yet? ?another? ?teenager was? ?assaulted? ?or? ?even? ?shot? ?at? ?school? ?or? ?even? ?off? ?campus? ?(as? ?a? ?result? ?of? ?events? ?which? ?occur? ?on campus).? ?? ?In? ?Ridgewood? ?NJ,? ?last? ?week,? ?a? ?teenager? ?had? ?his? ?skull? ?fractured? ?when? ?he? ?stood? ?up? ?to? ?a friend? ?who? ?was? ?being? ?bullied? ?for? ?some? ?weeks? ?before.? ?? ?I? ?hear? ?some? ?parents? ?blaming? ?the? ?internet. They? ?say? ?children? ?are? ?watching? ?videos? ?on? ?youtube? ?about? ?how? ?to? ?build? ?explosive? ?devices? ?or? ?build guns.? ?? ?But? ?folks? ?were? ?hurting? ?and? ?shooting? ?each? ?other? ?for? ?a? ?long? ?while? ?in? ?history? ?before? ?the internet? ?came? ?to? ?be? ?so? ?popular. Other? ?people? ?blame? ?guns? ?and? ?the? ?lack? ?of? ?stronger? ?gun? ?laws? ?in? ?America.? ?? ?They? ?say? ?that? ?if? ?there were? ?more? ?laws? ?constraining? ?the? ?ability? ?to? ?buy? ?and? ?keep? ?guns,? ?there? ?would? ?not? ?be? ?so? ?much violence.? ?? ?It’s? ?likely? ?that? ?if? ?we? ?had? ?more? ?or? ?stronger? ?gun? ?laws,? ?the? ?criminals? ?who? ?hurt? ?or? ?shoot others? ?would? ?simply? ?be? ?breaking? ?more? ?laws? ?in? ?the? ?process? ?of? ?their? ?commission? ?of? ?violence? ?and that? ?would? ?not? ?reduce? ?the? ?numbers? ?of? ?gun? ?deaths. “Still? ?others? ?think? ?that? ?the? ?depiction? ?of? ?vivid? ?violence? ?in? ?movies? ?and? ?in? ?video? ?games? ?is? ?the? ?cause of? ?the? ?violence.? ?People? ?were? ?violent? ?long? ?before? ?video? ?games? ?and? ?movies? ?came? ?along.? ?People are? ?putting? ?the? ?blame? ?in? ?the? ?wrong? ?place.? ?The? ?reason? ?there? ?is? ?so? ?much? ?violence? ?today? ?is because? ?we? ?have? ?lost? ?our? ?moral? ?character.? ?If? ?there? ?had? ?been? ?a? ?copy? ?of? ?the? ?Ten? ?Commandments on? ?the? ?walls? ?of? ?the? ?classrooms? ?at? ?Columbine? ?High? ?in? ?Colorado,? ?those? ?boys? ?never? ?would? ?have killed? ?all? ?those? ?people.? ?If? ?there? ?had? ?been? ?required? ?prayer? ?every? ?day? ?from? ?kindergarten? ?on? ?up, violence? ?in? ?America? ?would? ?be? ?almost? ?non-existent. I? ?know? ?there? ?will? ?be? ?skeptics? ?who? ?will? ?say,? ?“But? ?Stalin? ?was? ?a? ?seminarian? ?and? ?Hitler? ?sang? ?in? ?the church? ?choir.”? ?These? ?claims? ?are? ?true,? ?but? ?Stalin? ?and? ?Hitler? ?are? ?exceptions? ?that? ?prove? ?the? ?rule. Slobodan? ?Milosovic? ?may? ?have? ?been? ?raised? ?in? ?a? ?religious? ?household? ?but? ?that? ?does? ?not? ?disprove my? ?135? ?point.? ?He? ?lost? ?faith? ?in? ?God? ?at? ?some? ?point,? ?as? ?did? ?Stalin? ?and? ?Hitler.? ?Had? ?they? ?kept? ?the? ?faith, they? ?would? ?not? ?have? ?become? ?so? ?evil. We? ?need? ?to? ?return? ?to? ?the? ?days? ?when? ?we? ?all? ?worshipped? ?the? ?same? ?God? ?on? ?Sunday.? ?Only? ?then? ?will we? ?return? ?to? ?the? ?days? ?of? ?peace? ?and? ?quiet? ?our? ?ancestors? ?used? ?to? ?know.? ?Science? ?will? ?prove? ?me right.? ?There? ?have? ?been? ?studies? ?that? ?have? ?shown? ?that? ?people? ?who? ?pray? ?live? ?longer? ?than? ?people who? ?don’t.? ?Moreover,? ?prayer? ?has? ?been? ?shown? ?to? ?help? ?the? ?sick? ?recover? ?more? ?quickly. Thus,? ?we? ?must? ?have? ?a? ?constitutional? ?amendment? ?to? ?require? ?prayer? ?in? ?our? ?public? ?and? ?private schools.? ?This? ?notion? ?is? ?supported? ?by? ?former? ?Vice-President? ?Sam? ?Snail? ?and? ?by? ?Senator? ?Leeroy Smart;? ?both? ?start? ?each? ?day? ?with? ?a? ?prayer? ?and? ?have? ?not? ?shot? ?anyone? ?in? ?all? ?their? ?days? ?on? ?Earth. Only? ?when? ?we? ?require? ?every? ?school? ?child? ?to? ?pray,? ?will? ?there? ?be? ?an? ?end? ?to? ?the? ?violence? ?that plagues? ?our? ?nation.” 1. ? ?What? ?is? ?the? ?main? ?conclusion? ?of? ?this? ?argument? 2. What? ?are? ?the? ?author’s’? ?premises? 3. Are? ?there? ?any? ?fallacies? ?in? ?the? ?author’s? ?(sub)arguments? 4. Are? ?there? ?any? ?irrelevancies? ?in? ?the? ?author’s? ?(sub)arguments? 5. Do? ?you? ?think? ?the? ?argument? ?about? ?having? ?more? ?gun? ?laws? ?is? ?persuasive? ?for? ?the? ?conclusion of? ?this? ?argument? 6. Are? ?all? ?of? ?the? ?author’s? ?(sub)arguments? ?supported? 7. Summarize? ?the? ?author’s? ?main? ?conclusion? ?argument? ?in? ?two? ?sentences. 8. Write? ?three? ?sentences? ?about? ?the? ?soundness? ?of? ?the? ?conclusion.

Answer 1

1. the main conclusion of the arguement is that being religiously inclined is a way to become non violent. only if people are praying to the lord each day and have faith in god then they will not ever be violent. also this is the only way of ending or reducing violence as concluded in the last few lines.

2. the author has based his conclusion on the scientific research resullts that said that people who pray live longer and prayer heals or recovers the sick. along with this he took examples of hitler, stalin and slobodan milosovic amd explained that faith in god is neccessary along with praying.

3. the fallacies in the authors sub arguments are that internet, guns and violent games are not responsible for violence. also he has made his own assumptions about hitler and stalins losing faith. teh argument about the gun laws is also a fallacy as it has been presented only with the negative extreme and not with the bother side. also the conclusive argument has been presented with the opposite examples of hitler and stalin being people who pray regularly and are still violent. this argument has been presented with other reasons of their behavior which are not that strongly presented and a conclusion has been made.

4. the irrelevancies in the sub arguments were basically the examples of hitler, stalin and slobodan milosovic. all the three were exxtremely violent yet religiously inclined. they shoudnt have been brought up in the argument and there presence has weakend the argument as well as the conclusion based on it. rather people who were or are religiosly inclined and symbols of peace should have been presented instead of them then it would have been stronger as well in line making the whole sub argument relevant.

5. yes, the argument about having more gun laws does persuade the conclusion. a major point to be presented here is that the arguemnt is based onassumption that more laws would be breaking and only the negative side of the matter is looked upon. as a result of this the only way of reducing violence has been found to be religiously inclined.

6. no, all the sub arguments are not supported well rather I would say only a few or infact none of the sub argument has been presented with a valid and good enough reason. from the beginning itself the supportive reason is that it used to occur before this came in place also and the author has not at all focused on the fact that there were other reasons to this at that time but now ndue to these reasons it has been increasing. the internet, gun laws as well a the violence in video games all have been approached from a completely one sided approach. even the comment made about losing morals has not been addressed at all. only the comment has been made and later he has shifted to showing how religiously inclined people are less violent. although this conclusive argument is also not strongly supported but it has some supportive facts with it and this is the argument which has so much reasons and explanation with ecxamples attached to it.

7. the major conclusion of the author is that no other external factor is responsible for the increase in violence other than the loss of morals specially the religion and its value in people and only if people pray each day then violence can be ended or reduced.

8.although the premises stated above are scientifically proven still i would comment that the premisses are not linked to the argument. no where in the research has vilence been linked to praying scientifically. also the examples presented after that along with the reasons given are not strong enough. also the argument has been presented contradictorily as on one side he has said that people should be forced by law to pray and also it is presented that without faith prayer doesnt reduce violence. hence the argument has not been very sound.