Scribd
Upload
27 views

Graded Assignment_ Critically evaluating arguments

The document critiques an argument against squatting, highlighting its premises, logical fallacies, and biases. It concludes that the argument is weak due to reliance on anecdotal evidence and emotional appeals, while failing to address broader social issues related to homelessness. The evaluation emphasizes the need for more comprehensive solutions beyond penalizing squatters.

Uploaded by

ducthinhnguyenc3hbttt
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
27 views

Graded Assignment_ Critically evaluating arguments

The document critiques an argument against squatting, highlighting its premises, logical fallacies, and biases. It concludes that the argument is weak due to reliance on anecdotal evidence and emotional appeals, while failing to address broader social issues related to homelessness. The evaluation emphasizes the need for more comprehensive solutions beyond penalizing squatters.

Uploaded by

ducthinhnguyenc3hbttt
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Graded Assignment: Critically evaluating

arguments​
​
Name: Nguyễn Đức Thịnh
Student Code: HE191037
Class Name: MKT1929​
​
File: Squatting is Not the Answer
​
Premises and Conclusions

Premises:

●​ Squatting is portrayed as "queue-jumping" and is unfair to those who follow the


conventional process of home ownership.
●​ Squatting disrespects the concept of home ownership, which is considered
sacrosanct.
●​ The argument claims that squatting is often conducted by middle-class individuals
rather than the truly homeless.
●​ There are better ways to address homelessness, such as government programs and
accommodation vouchers.

Conclusion:

●​ Squatting should be penalized more severely because it disrespects property rights


and undermines home ownership.

Logical Fallacies

There are potential logical fallacies in the argument:

1.​ Hasty Generalization: The argument claims that squatting is mainly done by
middle-class beatniks and punks, based on anecdotes. This generalization ignores
the diversity of people who squat, including the genuinely homeless.
2.​ Straw Man Fallacy: The depiction of squatting as a choice made by people trying to
subvert the system oversimplifies the motivations of squatters, avoiding more
nuanced discussions about systemic issues like housing shortages and affordability.
3.​ Appeal to Tradition: The argument leans on the idea that home ownership is
"sacrosanct" and should not be violated. This appeals to tradition without addressing
the evolving societal and economic issues that challenge this norm.

Claims and Evidence

●​ Claim: Squatting is "no better than theft."


○​ Evaluation: This is an emotive comparison without clear evidence or
reasoning. While squatting involves occupying property without permission,
equating it directly with theft ignores the complexity of the issue, such as legal
protections or differing motivations behind squatting.
●​ Claim: The Conservative administration’s policy of accommodation vouchers is a
step in the right direction.
○​ Evaluation: While the claim offers an alternative solution, it lacks evidence to
show the effectiveness of these policies or how they compare to the housing
needs of squatters.

Biases or Assumptions

●​ Assumption of Middle-Class Squatters: The assumption that most squatters are


middle-class people seeking to subvert the system is not backed by substantial
evidence and demonstrates bias. It ignores economic realities that force some
people into squatting as a necessity rather than a choice.
●​ Bias in Home Ownership Ideology: The argument assumes that home ownership
is universally attainable and does not consider systemic inequalities that make it
difficult for many people to achieve.

Types of Argument Used

●​ Appeal to Emotion: The argument uses emotionally charged language such as


"desecration," "hooligans," and "utter disrespect" to evoke negative feelings towards
squatters, appealing to the reader’s emotions rather than reasoned debate.
●​ Slippery Slope: The text suggests that squatting leads to widespread disrespect for
property rights, implying that lenient squatting laws could cause chaos, which is an
exaggerated consequence.

Evaluation

Overall, the argument is weak due to its reliance on anecdotal evidence, emotional appeals,
and unsubstantiated claims. It fails to address the broader social and economic factors
contributing to squatting and offers limited discussion on the potential solutions to
homelessness beyond vague references to government programs. Additionally, the
argument's focus on penalizing squatters ignores deeper issues like housing affordability,
making the proposed solution incomplete.

You might also like