All papers are checked via
|← I Wash the Shirt||Evolution of Child Custody Laws →|
The articles- We the people (the Weekly Standard) and Editorial (human inventory control) by Eastland, T and the Editorial team of Scientific American respectively, carry with them important arguments with corresponding implications. On his part, Eastland T. argues that the proposal by house republicans to make it a requirement to include citation of the constitution on each bill before it’s presented to congress has a modest capacity to limit the government in law enactment.
His argument however is deductive and has no guarantee to deliver the said result. This is because a citation on its own does not confirm the constitutionality of the bill. Furthermore, such an argument is not conclusive because the government can influence Congress to enact their preferred laws. On their part the Editors of Scientific American argue that technology may be good but with it comes costs and unforeseen demerits. Their arguments are inductive because the outcomes are subject to factors that may not be controlled presently. For instance, the administration of The Brittan Elementary School had good intentions with the introduction of the radio tags. Unfortunately there was a turn of events at a later stage.
Should the editors of the Scientific American be right, the logical inference and claims following introduction of new ideas is that provision of any eventuality is paramount. This definitely means longer incubation periods for ideas, more funds and frustration to the sponsors of the idea. On the whole it’s prudent to state that all arguments have implications. As such, Critical analysis guards against undesirable implications.