Health Care in America –

In putting forth his pussy-footed program of 10 principles for national health insurance, the president would have us consider only the details of coverage, cost, and administration. He skips nimbly over the threshold question: Should we have national health insurance at all? To justify so radical a departure from traditional forms of health care, proponents might reasonably begin by arguing that health services in America are so poor that greater governmental intrusion is imperative. But this does not seem to be the case. For example, since 1970, infant mortality has dropped 25 percent, life expectancy has risen by a year and a half, and 9 of the 10 leading causes of death have declined.

Also, public opinion polls indicate that Americans overwhelmingly are satisfied with the care they receive.

Nevertheless, do the people want a program of national health insurance? It depends on how the question is put. Phrased in terms of free medical care, the question understandably draws an affirmative response. But when an NBC survey asked about a program paid for through increased taxation, it was a different matter altogether. There simply is no convincing evidence of public demand for the kind of program that the president would impose on the country.

Health Care in America
1. What is the issue? (Hint: Issues are stated in the form of questions.)
2. What is the conclusion? (Hint: It is supported by the given reasons.)
3. Name 2 clear reasons.

Question 1 options:
Question 2 (17 points)
Housewives and Stress –

Many housewives experience severe stress. The demands of children, husband and society place intense pressures on modern women. To cope with these pressures often requires medicinal aid. What is wrong with taking an effective pill that gives both energy and relative peace of mind? It certainly seems preferable to have women taking amphetamines than to have them experiencing massive nervous breakdowns. There is little evidence to suggest that amphetamines taken in moderate dosages are addictive, and they are not very expensive; thus, it would seem that modern women have little to lose and much to gain by their use.

Housewives and Stress
1. What is the conclusion?
2. Name 4 clear reasons that are given (even though they may all be highly questionable).
3. Name 2 value assumptions that must be made to move toward the conclusion.
4. Based on your own knowledge and experience, write a short 50 word essay defending a position that disagrees with the writer. Be sure to include at least 3 good reasons that support your conclusion.

Question 2 options:
Question 3 (17 points)
Adopted Children –
Adopted children should have the right to find out who their biological parents are. They should be able to find out for personal and health reasons. Most children would want to know what happened to these people and why they were given up for adoption. Even though this meeting may not be completely the way the child had imagined it, this interaction could provide a real sense of closure for adopted children. There are people who believe that it does not matter who the biological parent are as long as the child has loving parents. It is true that having a supportive environment is necessary for children, but there will always be nagging questions for these children that will be left unanswered if they are not able to find out about their biological parents. These are also health risks that can be avoided by allowing a child to find out who their parents are. A lot of diseases have hereditary links that would be useful for the child and the new family to know.

Adopted Children
1. What is the conclusion?
2. Name 4 clear reasons that are given
3. Name 2 value assumptions that must be made to move toward the conclusion.
4. Based on your own knowledge and experience, write a short 50 word essay defending a position that disagrees with the writer. Be sure to include at least 3 good reasons that support your conclusion

Question 3 options:
Question 4 (7 points)
Corporate Fraud
What made Harry Needamore, the chief executive of Slippery Oil, so obsessed with making money that he was willing to mislead investors and falsify accounting information such that his deception cost innocent investors millions of dollars? He is a psychopathic personality. It seems that all such extreme cases of corporate fraud come from this cause, as Mr. Needamores case so clearly demonstrates.

Corporate Fraud
1. What is the issue?
2. What is the conclusion?
3. What is the reason?
4. Name 2 fallacies that are apparent. Give a brief, one sentence explanation for each.

Question 4 options:
Question 5 (3 points)
Countries that Harbor Terrorists
Bill: Countries that harbor terrorists who want to destroy the United States must be considered enemies of the United States. Any country that does not relinquish terrorists to the American justice system is clearly on the side of the terrorists. This sort of action means that the leaders of these countries do not wish to see justice done to the terrorists and care more about hiding murderers, rapists, thieves, and anti-democrats.

Taylor: Thats exactly the kind of argument that I would expect from someone who has relatives who have worked for the CIA. But it seems to me that once you start labeling countries that disagree with America on policy as enemies, then eventually almost all countries will be considered our enemies, and we will be left with no allies.

Bill: If thats the case, too bad. America stands for freedom, for democracy, and for truth. So it can stand against the world. Besides, the United States should be able to convince countries hostile to the United States of the error of their ways because our beliefs have a strong religious foundation.

Taylor: Do you really think most religious people are in favor of war? A Gallup poll last week found that 75 percent of highly religious people didnt think we should go to war with countries harboring terrorists.

Bill: I think thats an overestimate. How many people did they survey?

Taylor: Im not sure. But getting back to your original issue, the biggest problem with a tough stand against countries that harbor terrorists is that such a policy is not going to wipe out terrorism in the world.

Bill: Why do you keep defending the terrorists? I thought you were a patriot. Besides this is a democracy, and most Americans agree with me.

Countries that Harbor Terrorists
1. What is the issue?
2. What is Bills conclusion?
3. What is Taylors conclusion?

Question 5 options:
Question 6 (10 points)
Match the reason with the fallacy. Fallacies may be used more than once.

Question 6 options:

Bill: This is a democracy, most Americans agree with me.

Taylor: Thats what I would expect from someone with relatives working for the CIA.

Bill: Thats an overestimate. How many people did they survey?

Bill: How can you defend the terrorists; I thought you were a patriot.

Taylor: Once you start labeling countries that disagree with U.S. policy as enemies, then eventually almost all countries will be considered our enemies.

Bill: America can handle that. It stands for freedom, for democracy and for truth and thus can stand against the world.

Bill: Countries that harbor terrorists must be considered enemies of the U.S. Such an action means that the leaders dont want to see justice done to terrorists and care more about hiding murderers, rapists, etc.

Bill: America should be able to convince countries hostile to it of the error of their ways because of the strong religious foundation of its beliefs.

Taylor: Biggest problem with a tough stand is that its not going to wipe out terrorism.

Taylor: But most religious people dont think we should go to war with countries harboring terrorists.