I got this editorial out of the friday, september 16th edition of The Berkshire Eagle.
Its title is "Tougher ordinance on skateboards"
The Pittsfield ordinance banning skateboards and bikes from sidewalks not only must be enforced it must be toughened. This is a significant problem that could prevent the city's downtown from fully achieving its potential, and it is a problem that will be eased by not solved with the construction of a skatepark.
It is completely obvious to me that this article is not an argument because it contains only claims unsupported by any premises.
C1: The ordinance banning skateboards and bikes from sidewalks not only must be enforced, but toughened.
C2: This significant problem could prevent the city's downtown form fully achieving its potential.
C3: This problem with be eased, but not solved by the construction of a skatepark.
Maybe 2 & 3 are the premises?
ReplyDelete1: Bikes & Skateboards prevent the town from achieving its potential.
2:A skate park will not end this problem
3: Therefore, the ordinance banning skateboards and bikes from sidewalks not only must be enforced, but toughened.
Its not exactly a strong argument though.
I agree that this is not an argument due to the fact that there is no conclusion, simply premises
ReplyDelete