五、逻辑问题例文分析

Case Study 3：

The following appeared in the editorial section of a newspaper.

  “As public concern over drug abuse has increased, authorities have become more vigilant¹ in their effort to prevent illegal drugs from entering the country. Many drug traffickers have consequently switched from marijuana, which is bulky, or heroin², which has a market too small to justify³ the risk of severe punishment, to cocaine⁴. Thus enforcement efforts have ironically resulted in an observed increase in the illegal use of cocaine.”

Student Essay

The argument that enforcement effort over illegal drag trade, incurred⁵ by the increase of public concern over drug abuse, resulted in an observed increase in the illegal use of cocaine sound reasonable at first. But the fact that movement against drag abuse is the venture of all human being and all the responsibility of all governments, and other reasons below will weak the result, or draw to an opposite conclusion.

    Drug abuse brings us human being nothing but a disaster, mental aberration⁶, debilitated⁷ health, career desolation, family breakage and people’s totally out of control. No doubt, however small the result will be, every government should take some action against drug abuse, make people way from illegal drugs and bring a steady and health society.

All kinds of illegal drugs, not only cocaine, endangers our lives. Considering the enforcement effort over illegal drugs, we should view the efforts over the total amount of marijuana, heroin, cocaine and other illegal drugs. Since many drug traffickers have consequently switched from marijuana and heroin to cocaine because of government’s action, We can not tell the change on the total amount of drugs if, with the dramatic decrease of marijuana and heroin, this total amount decreased as the result of enforcement. We can claim that opposite the argument, the enforcement of effort do overawe the drug traffickers.

    The argument also tells us that government’s efforts to prevent illegal drugs from entering the country had effectively made drug traffickers switched form marijuana and heroin to cocaine, which means with the decrease on marijuana and heroin, the government can focus their effort on cocaine. We can see the bright future that authorities will effectively beat the cocaine traffickers just as they beat the marijuana and heroin traffickers.

    So the argument’s conclusion would absurd though reasoning. The authorities action did some efforts to the illegal drug abuse they should continue the enforcement against drug abuse, with efficiency.

Revised Essay

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the government’s efforts to prevent illegal drugs from entering the country have resulted in an obvious increase in the illegal use of cocaine. To support this conclusion, the arguer points out that the authorities’ more vigilant efforts to thwart⁸ the illegal drug traffic in the country have forced drug traffickers to switch from marijuana and heroin to cocaine. In addition, the arguer reasons that the increase in the supply of cocaine has resulted in its increasing use. This argument commits two critical fallacies.

   In the first place, this argument commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification. The arguer assumes that an increase in the supply of cocaine is sufficient to bring about an increase in its use. While the supply of cocaine may be one of the contributing factors to its use, it is insufficient⁹. The presumption¹⁰ required to substantiate¹¹ this view is that drug users are not particular about which drugs they use, so that if marijuana and heroin are not available, they will switch to whatever drug is available--cocaine in this case. This assumption is not reasonable. Marijuana, heroin, and cocaine are not alike in their effects on users; nor are they alike in the manner in which they are ingested or in their addictive¹² properties. The view that drug users’ choice of drugs is simply a function of supply overlooks these important differences. Besides, the argument is self-contradictory. If it were true, as stated by the arguer, that cocaine trafficking is both safer than the bulky marijuana and more profitable than heroin that has a small market, this fact alone would have motivated the drug traffickers to switch to cocaine. In this case, the government enforcement effort should not be held accountable for the rise in the use of cocaine. 

   In the second place, the arguer fails to provide the necessary information based on which we can evaluate the comprehensive effect of the government's action. The background of the incident is that the drug abuse has now become ever more serious a social problem than anytime in the past. And this is what motivated the government actions against drug trafficking in the first place. We, therefore, can reasonably assume that before the government took actions the abuse of all major popular drugs had been on the trend of increase, including the use of cocaine. The newspaper editorial, however, only mentions the observed increase in the use of cocaine while failing to provide any information to specify¹³ the current increase and that before the government strengthened its drug contraction¹⁴ efforts. We thus cannot compare the patterns of change in this aspect before and after the government  actions  in  order to  reach  any valid¹⁵ conclusion about the impact of the government actions on the use of cocaine.