Appeal for a Law to

¶ … appeal for a law to be passed that would necessitate some sort of restraint to tie dogs (or other animals) in the back of moving trucks so that animals would not be accidentally, or deliberately, thrown onto the highways during the journey thus hit by a passing truck or in other ways injured.

The author uses facts to support his argument, for instance: "100,000 dogs are killed each year by either falling out of or being intentionally tossed out of careening pickup trucks," but fails, in that particular instance, to supply his source as well as failing to supply full citation for the article that quotes the observations of the Humane Society.

Furthermore, the short paragraphs "A frolicking dog in the back of a pickup is an obvious distraction and hazard, not only for the truck owner and the dog but for anybody else on or near that road or highway," also detracts from the purpose of the article. In a more positive aside, the author introduces both sides of the argument, discussing states that have propounded exceptions in particular cases. Nonetheless, the author concludes that: "The current system doesn't work.

While many dogs can survive a ride in the back of a pickup, many will not." He denounces the alternative of education and concludes that the sole solution would be a statute passed in Colorado that would prohibit dogs to be allowed loose in the truck. His logical fallacies consists of the following: The author sees the situation in an Either / or manner, meaning that the alternative lies between education informing citizens of the danger or between a statute compelling citizens to obey.

In reality, a potentially vast array of other alternatives exist (such as providing citations, enticements and so forth) without having to resort to an Either-or situation. More so, mergence of both Education and ordinance can be used, and Education need not be seen in such a simplistic, peremptorily rejecting manner since that concept, too, contains a spectrum of possibilities. The writer, in short, simplifies a complex situation ignoring the diversity of people involved and potential situations.

Whilst the statute might help impede those who intentionally desire to kill their animals, the statue might also provoke those who feel that tying an animal might constrict his movement over a period of many hours and thus constitute a certain form of cruelty. Other forms of prevention, a syntheses of preventions, or, at least, taking these alternate views into consideration might have resulted in a more logical, less insensitive, more appealing essay.

No doubt, however, the move would have appealed to readers who would like stricter laws passed in their state defending both animals and, themselves from possible road collisions or from otherwise being compelled to kill animals in order to prevent road accidents. The second passage, "A Letter from an Irate Dog Owner" contests the point of the article and the call for a proposed law by stating that dogs love jumping around in a truck; love feeling the open air; therefore, ergo, it would be cruel to restrain the dog.

There are several fallacies with the letter: The writer is assuming an abusive tone (Argumentum ad Hominem) where instead of logically disproving the gist of the previous article, he verbally abuses both writer and certain citizens of the state.

He individually abuses the essayist in the following manner: "Even a city slicker should be able to see why dogs belong in pickup trucks," whilst pronouncing Humane Rights individuals to be "bleeding heart[s]" He is also not addressing the point of the article, which was not to maintain that animals should not be riding in trucks but should rather be restrained from falling out. In this manner he is committing Ignorati Elenchi (an irrelevant conclusion) where he is reading an inappropriate conclusion to the argument.

Furthermore, he is appealing to pity ("All dogs love riding out in the air. They need room to jump around") rather than to logic. And in summary form, this is not an argument: the writer is simply emoting and presenting his opinion in an impassioned aggressive manner. This type of letter might appeal to a particular "hard-working citizen" (possibly overwhelmed with the problems of trying to make ends meet and, all too often, perceiving intellectuals and 'privileged' others as controlling and manipulating their existence. Topic 2. Speech fragments.

Speech fragments are a common part of informal, routine, colloquial conversation probably more often indulged in with those that we are on intimate terms with. In fact, the closer we feel with the other, the more likely we are to use these fragments since we feel (whether rightly or wrongly) that the listener knows and being able to read our mind can mentally complete the sentence.

Speech fragments are, also, used during times of excitement and stress (for instance when we have little time to catch and are pressed between assignments; injunctions or commands are then given in abbreviated form).