Abigail Alcoser & Clement Chun
March 6th, 2015
Assignment (Analysis Essay)
In the essay “Give Drugs to Addicts So We Can Be Safe”, by Jonah J. Goldstein, he does not effectively argue his point and convinces the reader, since he uses false comparisons, makes inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence, and bad assumptions. Johan J. Goldstein tries to affect the reader emotionally but he fails to use it properly. Instead of balancing the emotions of the readers he makes the emotional appeal become a substitute for logic and reasoning. Moreover, he offers a simple thoughtless solution to a complex problem. He also advocates intolerant ideas which makes inconsiderate when stating his points. Firstly, he offers some statistics, like the cost of keeping someone in prison; he gives no evidence to prove his point. He also uses the expert opinion of Dr. Berger, who gives really good insight on the topic, but the doctor Goldstein states many analogies that do not seem appropriate for the problem. For example, he states clearly,” and the poor addict can go to the clinic, just as the poor diabetic goes to the clinic for a shot of insulin.” Insulin is essential for diabetics and that is scientifically known, however drugs are not essential nor are it healthy for the body, so the two things that are being compared fails to support his point. This comparison also makes false analogies and make Doctor Goldstein point seem less credible and effective.
There are many hasty generalizations within the essay; he states that drugs are sedatives, and that the addict causes no harm when he is under the influence. What he does not do is give any evidence to back up his claim and he is just assuming. He also makes stereotypical comments, like when he says that if the family moves to a place near the border, they can find drugs for free. Therefore, he is being insinuating in that Mexico has a lot of drugs, and doesn’t and still doesn’t provide any...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document