Mainp softvnncom

element. It is saying 'definitely'. Alternatively, as I have done, it can be excluded as simply indicating the kind of claim being made (definitional). The subject is: 'this long-term result'

The predicate is: 'is dangerous' (Note the way this clearly links to the predicate in the sub-conclusion, claim 2.) Claim 6

'/ believe should be excluded here (though it does not really matter if you included it). If one is arguing, then it is taken that the claims on which you rely are those one believes. However, had the claim been about another person's beliefs, the correct answer would have included those words. The importance of claim 5, which first raised 'danger' and then the way 'danger' is included in claim 2 starts to become clear here.

The subject is: 'the government's role' The predicate is: 'should be to work to avoid danger' Claim 7

'/ believe can again be excluded here. If one is arguing, then it is taken for granted that the claims on which you rely are those you believe. However, had the claim been about another person's beliefs, the correct answer would have included those words. The subject of this claim is more detailed, so as to remind readers of the very first claim made.

The subject is: 'the government's current approach to the UN over human rights'

The predicate is: 'is incorrect' The first part of the argument (3+4+5 —> 2)

Claim 2 is presented 'because' ... and then some more claims. As a result, these claims are functioning as the premises for 2. Claim 2, therefore, functions as a conclusion to 3, 4, and 5 and then as a premise in the rest of the argument. Note the use of a proposition here (claim 4). 'If x happens, then y happens; x is happening; therefore y will happen'. The second part of the argument (1+2+6 —> 7)

Generally governments should work to avoid danger, the arguer is saying. In this specific case the government is not doing that. Therefore the government is wrong in this specific case.

0 0

Post a comment