Return to Homepage.
Michael Kadish
English Final
Multiple Choice
1) In "A Modest Proposal," Swift manages to present an argument that is so absurd and problematic, that the readers quickly realize that his view must be contrary to what he literally wrote. His goal, well accomplished, was to create such a horrid plan, taken all the way to an extreme, that the readers would embarrassingly see traces of their own opinions in this radical piece. By going down the line, offending more and more peoples; sailors, Catholics, Americans, and of course, Irishmen, never letting his supposed proposal's tone falter, Swift managed to convince the readers at the time that it was not a serious proposition.
2) The AA pieces in the book all had different opinions in regard to affirmative action, some wanted it abolished, some wanted changes, and some wanted the present system to remain. However, a common denominator amongst them, managed to be the consistent view that there was a need for some form of AA. All agreed that the laissez faire approach was not the way to go, most agreed that the present system had at least some undesirable effects, but after that, each of the pieces offered different arguments and lines of thinking.
3) Kevorkian's main argument is that the people, being kept alive, are being tortured, and should be allowed to be set free. He contends that there is no reason to force the elderly, who are clearly suffering, and watching themselves die painfully, an easy way out. His point is simply that they have no other recourse, nothing else to live for, they, without euthanasia would simply be watching their bodies deteriorate in a way that no person should have to go through.
1) Slippery slope--a claim is made and an outcome that may or may not be reached is offered as fact.
2) Appeal to tradition--the beliefs of our ancestors are being maintained.
3) Two wrongs make a right--The people are questioning how it is the government can punish somebody for murder, when they have committed similar acts.
4) Straw man
How can we hope to continue profitable criminal actions on the street, when the courts are scaring are brothers and sisters in crime with severe threats, albeit empty, against them? Only the intelligent criminals will continue to steal, only the ones who know that these strong threats are only empty threats will have the courage to continue in their necessary line of work.
Theft is not a business that needs to be diluted of those who listen to threats. We need more criminals on the streets, and scaring them off is not going to accomplish this. Granted, the actions of the courts, quickly letting out the offenders is assisting our cause, but these horrific, scary lies of theirs are simply scaring away more potential muggers, robbers, and hoodlums.
I am glad that the government obviously understands the need for street criminals, and is therefore giving them such minimal punishments. It is obvious why we need these brave individuals on the street, there are many reasons. We must not allow the wealthy to keep control over the money. A thief who mugs is automatically a Robin Hood, since the thief is ostensibly poor to begin with. On a more cerebral level, we have Kant's argument. A crime is unethical only if society could not function if the entire community perpetrated the "crime". The wealthy and the middle class have the opportunity to perform white collar crime, a privilege not bestowed on the lower classes, and therefore, for the sake of society, we must allow the lower classes to burglarize, and steal. It is for the sake of society.
It is for that reason I feel these policies of exaggerating the punishment is vile. It may not scare all of the individuals; the brave ones may continue, but in a situation where we need all of the thieves on the street, there is no excuse for these Mickey Mouse tactics. Let honesty prevail, and let these individuals do their important jobs.