| 1. Present your two arguments. Performance Enhancing Drugs Argument 1- If Performance enhancing drugs make athletes bigger and stronger and help them win more, they should be allowed. Performance enhancing drugs make athletes bigger and stronger and help them win more. Therefor Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed. Argument 2 – If Performance enhancing drugs give athletes an unfair advantage, they should not be allowed. Performance enhancing drugs give athletes an unfair advantage. Therefore Performance enhancing drugs should not be allowed. 2. Explain Each Argument. Both arguments are Deductive Arguments and strength of both of them is that the conclusion follows from the premises. As stated by Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo (2015), “a good deductive argument are characterized by their truth-preserving nature—if the premises are true, then the conclusion is guaranteed to be true also”(Pg. 2.4). 3. Compare the arguments. I don’t think either is better since they are both Deductive Arguments, just opposite opinions. Both are fair representations of someone taking that position would say. The premises are reasonable. They could be made better by adding scientific facts. Reference: Hardy, J., Foster, C., & Zúñiga y Postigo, G. (2015). With good reason: A guide to cirtical thinking [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/
| 
