Present your two arguments (one on each side of the issue) in standard form (with each premise and conclusion on a separate line) on the topic you selected from the Final Paper Options list. (Is it ever permissible to torture a person?or Should athletes be allowed to use performance-enhancing drugs (such as steroids or EPO) or techniques (such as blood doping or oxygen tanks) or Should universal healthcare be available to all regardless of their ability to pay in the same way that other services (such as education) are available to all for free? or Does one have an obligation to report wrongdoing by one’s employer, even whendoing so will result in the loss of one’s job? Are whistle blower laws effective and necessary?orDoes social media enhance or hinder interpersonal relationships?or Is it important to teach the arts and humanities to children)

Here is an example of what an argument in standard form looks like:
Premise 1: If Santa Claus exists, then he lives at the North Pole.
Premise 2: No one can live at the North Pole.
Conclusion: Santa Claus does not exist.

For each argument, provide a brief explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of the argument. You might explain whether the argument is inductive or deductive, or you might provide a diagram of the argument. Think about how the two arguments compare to each other. Is one better than the other? If so, what makes that one better? Is each a fair presentation of what someone taking that position would say? Are the premises reasonable? How might each argument be made better?

example:I chose the topic from my final paper options to be: Should universal healthcare be available to all regardless of their ability to pay in the same way that other services (such as education) are available to all for free? Healthcare is something that is needed for each individual.

Premise 1: Good universal healthcare would be costly to an individual.

Premise 2: Universal healthcare should be provided by your employer just as wages are. Wages ensure that we provide a decent living for families. Free universal healthcare by an employer would ensure that we are able physically to produce productivity in the work environment.

Premise 3: The government should provide universal free healthcare or options to an employer because employers pay into the government by paying taxes.

Conclusion: Universal healthcare should be provided and paid for by either the government or the employer you work for.

I work from home. The corporation that I work for do not offer healthcare to work home agents. The only way to obtain health care is to go through a healthcare company which can be very costly. Showing up to do the job is important for their productions and profits but ensuring that each employer can healthily be there to produce your productivity should be also looked upon as important. As a company or a government should work hand in hand to ensure that this is important for everyone.

Universal Healthcare should not be free regardless of their ability to pay in the same way that other services (such as education) are available to all for free.

Premise 1: Universal healthcare should not be free because it costs the employer billions of dollars to provide this service to employees.

Premise 2:  A employer should not have to pay free healthcare for spouses, dependents or other family members that are not employed or do not produce productivity for their company.

Premise 3: The government would have to tax more to ensure that this funding would be available

Conclusion: Universal Healthcare should not be provided freely by the government or an employer.

The company that I previously worked for provided free basic healthcare but if you needed it for your spouse or dependents there were premiums to pay for them. This argument is inductive because it shows that a company would stand to lose a lot of profit to provide free universal healthcare for employees. The government would stand to run into being abused by those who really can pay but won’t.