In the article "programs don't make sense", Peter B. Gemma Jr. emphasizes that the policy that give out free needles to junkies to help them avoid from the affection of AIDS is totally wrong. His main ground is that government cannot subsidize free needles to reduce the number of people using drug. However, I totally disagree with him because his arguments were flawed.
First, when he says that the program does not save the drug-addictions, he does not give out any hard evidence to prove it. He does not supply the readers the necessary information to draw conclusion. He uses several assumptions-just only assumptions- in order to prove his point. "It's wrong", "It's wrong" and "it's wrong" are just his objective ideas. We don't have other perspective views as well as number and statistics. The author tries to persuade on the ground of his idea, not on the fact or the conclusive data.
HIV/AIDS Support Group in Rural Kenya
Number of AIDS cases and AIDS-related deaths in Uk...
English: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1999/499...He uses a logical technique called induction-using observed premises in order to reach his conclusion. When he said, "it's wrong" the first time, he tended to lead the readers to the point that when he said "it's wrong" again, we willingly agree with him. However, in his first point "It's wrong to attempt to ease one crisis by reinforcing another" he did not show any hard evidence to convince us. His assumption makes the readers suspect about his syllogisms. We don't have any clue to believe his word. Thus, when he comes to the last premises about the wrong policy about drug-addition, his points are still not valid because the first premises does not a fact or an obvious proof. Thus, his point that Clinton- policy about giving away needles is fatally wrong has no evidence, experiment along with concrete proof. He makes the reader have...