philosophy writing assignment

Writing Assignment #1: Contrast/Compare the arguments of “Should We License Parents?” (by Jack C. Westman) and “Licensing Parents” (by Hugh LaFollette) pages 182-186 (starting at “Regulating Potentially Harmful Activities” and ending at “Theoretical Objections to Licensing”). Both articles are found in the “File” tab in the “Readings” folder.

So, (A) Read both articles. In a 2-4 page paper (B) explain both arguments using the concepts we’ve covered in class (e.g. premises, conclusion,induction, deduction, valid, etc), (C)contrast both arguments, and (D) indicate which argument is better and why.


Regarding (B), explaining an argument requires that you

(i) explicitly state its premises and conclusion,

(ii) state whether it is best interpreted as a deductive or an inductive argument (in other words, is the author trying to provide CONCLUSIVE support for the conclusion or merely trying to show that the conclusion is PROBABLY true) [See P. 70-75, “Judging Arguments”, of your textbook], (iii) if it is a deductive argument, is it valid or sound?; if it is an inductive argument, is it strong or cogent?


Regarding (C), both arguments are in favor of licensing parents, but they reach their conclusion in very different ways. I want you to point out the differences in how they reach this conclusion.


Regarding the format, it should be a standard essay with a introduction, body, and brief conclusion.  Importantly, you should NOT tell me your view on licensing parents. That will be for the next writing assignment. Also, no works cited/bibliography page is necessary for this assignment.