Peer Response 1

· response should be a minimum of 75 words.

· In your replies to others, offer helpful feedback on their arguments. In particular, comment on the following:

· Validity: Is there any way that their premises could all be true and their conclusion false? If so, explain how. Can you suggest why a new premise might need to be added in order to make it valid?

· Truth of the premises: Are all of their premises actually true (especially the new ones added to make it valid)? If not, provide a counter-example, or explain why somebody with the opposing point of view might object to the premise. Keep in mind that objecting in this way to an argument is not impolite; you are just helping them to improve their reasoning.

PEERS RESPONSE:

Hello,

My topic of choice was "Should a valid form of identification be mandatory to vote in any election?" I have (hopefully) made deductive arguments for both sides of the coin.

Argument for requiring valid identification:

P1: Identity theft can occur at a rate of 1 in 15 individuals.

P2: A valid form of identification could help correctly identify an individual.

C: Therefore, requiring a valid form of ID could help prevent fraud from happening.

(Identity Theft Odds | Identity Theft Statistics | ID Theft Risk | Identity Force® (Links to an external site.))

Argument for not requiring a valid form of identification:

P1: State Identifications can contain personal information of an individual.

P2: Anyone requiring a valid form of identification could obtain someone’s personal information.

C: Therefore, requiring valid identification can possibly compromise an individual’s personal information.

There is valid reasoning for both sides of this issue and I look forward to your inputs on them both.

-April Robertson