English Question- identify rhetorical devices- fallacies-identify the premise and conclusion-is argument valid?
Advocates of legalizing marijuana have long argued that it would bolster state tax revenue and undercut Mexican drug cartels, much as the repeal of Prohibition hurt Al Capone and the mob. But since no modern government has ever embraced the drug–permitting both its sale and cultivation–this connection between pot and gang control has never been tested. Now a new study from the RAND Corporation suggests that it might not hold up.
The report found that in California, where voters are split on a November referendum to legalize the trade, the retail price of locally grown marijuana could tumble hundreds of dollars, making the Golden State product about the same price ($38 per ounce) as its lower-quality Mexican counterpart. That would turn California into a supplier for the whole U.S. black market, according to the study, and deal a multibillion-dollar blow to the cartels. But not if lawmakers tax the local bud at $50 per ounce, the proposed rate in a separate measure aimed at securing $1.4 billion in new revenue. Under that system–assuming massive tax evasion doesn’t occur–the cartels would retain their cost advantage in much of the U.S. and, according to coauthor Jonathan Caulkins, the effect on their business would be no more damaging than a “round-off error.”
By R. M. Schneiderman
— Identify any rehtorical devices
—– Fallacies
—— Premises and conclusion
——–Is argument valid/invalid/sound/unsound/strong/weak??
———Does author use moral reasoning?
Can’t help without looking up the Study, who sponsored it and if it was done ‘one sided’.
The majority of this is rhetorical. It is an opinion piece.