The writer of this argument states that drugs should be legalized and implies at the beginning that s/he will substantiate the claim by arguments based on both moral and practical considerations. It is then stated that both these "sorts of considerations . . . favor the legalization of drugs." This implies that when considered in moral or pragmatic terms the conclusion will favor this point of view and that no other conclusions could be reached. The writer then says that "in other words" it is immoral to forbid drug use and that legalization would produce "gains for us." The use of the phrase "in other words" is typical of the writer's method in which a claim is made (i.e., that the two parts of the statement are equivalent--merely the same thing phrased differently) employing terminology that implies a logical progression and connection between ideas that is simply nonexistent. The writer presents her/his moral argument in the guise of a convergent argument, but her/his premise is actually contradicted by the second statement rather than being supported by it, and the third statement then bears no relation to the premise at all. S/he claims first that the government should not forbid activities unless they impinge on the rights of others. The premise is actually stated in the negative (i.e., "should never forbid activities which do not impinge") but the implied agreement with the positive statement is important because the writer then proceeds to ignore it.
11 
)
= 929
= 4 (250 words per page)
