Ldu presentation analysis

1. Analysis

2.  It is the backbone of every reasoned
argument
 Analysis is simply a process of separation
 No claim is believable without analysis
 A lack of analysis renders a claim an assertion
 Anyone can do it, few people do
 A lack of analysis is typical of poor reasoning

3. Take your conclusion: that’s where all arguments start
Think of an claim that supports (or disproves) your conclusion

4. To provide reasonable analysis you should answer two questions:
 Why is the claim true?
Iteratively ask yourself ‘why?’. Why is what you’re
saying true, use Reasoning, Evidence and Illustration
to show the progressions of your argument.
 Why is the claim relevant?
Assuming your claim is true, why should we care?

5. Conclusion
Why are the Series of Claims
claims relevant? (C1, C2, C3…)
Why are the
claims true?

6. Conclusion: The Black
Market for drugs is worse
than their harms if legal
C1: The Black Market has
Drug wars kill more people and use more harms (H1, H2, H3…)
policing resources than would be
otherwise if drugs were legal.
eg. H1 = Drug wars.
Drug wars occur because illegal supply of drugs has to come from a criminal
gangs. Areas to supply to (territory) is valuable to various gangs, therefore
gangs fight for it.

7.  You’ll need a weight of arguments
 You’ll have to compare those arguments to
competing counter arguments

8. Why?
Argument: Prisoners have issues that affect
them too and should be considered
Like what?
Prison overcrowding and abuse by wardens are
key issues that are understood almost solely by
prisoners, and hence are not heard.
SO WHAT?
Democracies should accommodate all people
with a stake in that society.

9. This house would
legalize all drugs
Line:
Because: Line: it would save
Maintaining life is of the lives
utmost priority
Because:
all other rights depend upon it
Soln: Regulate drugs
by ensuring purity of Claim 1: Drug takers
supply (labelling, etc.) die from
complications in
consumption
Analysis:
Drugs are also
sometimes spiked
with lethal substance

10.  Not True
 Worse than Alternative
 Not relevant
Explain why your arguments are more important to the
claim.
Or why yours outweigh the counter-arguments, even if
they’re true.
Or go negative, why are their arguments not
important or insignificant or false?

11. Counter Argument:
“Drugs should be banned because they’re addictive and
stop people being able to make positive life choices”
Possible Response:
“That argument ignores the fact that if you’re not alive
you can’t make any life choices, if they’re argument is
over life choices, the argument falls to our side of the
claim. Legalising drugs saves lives and gives people a
chance to turn their lives around before they are cut short
”

12. It’s nearly impossible to make an arguments that do not
have a response.
So it’s important that you remember to explain every
part of your argument, so you can understand how it is
being attacked, and respond appropriately.
Substantial analysis makes it harder for the other side to
dispute your claim (given time constraints).
Explain well enough and your arguments will prove or
disprove the claim, and you’ll (possibly) win.

13. Thanks!