Argument Summary
The argument revolves around the homelessness issue and states that the lack of access to permanent places of residence is specifically problematic in California. Unbearable housing costs are among the key contributors to the emerging crisis. The state should engage in reassessing current housing regulations, allocate more funds to affordable housing projects, and consider diverse predictors of being homeless, such as substance abuse and mental illness. The argument instrumentalizes the quantitative data elements rather than any visual imagery techniques.
Argument Evaluation/Explanation
The argument above successfully implements various argumentation elements, including logic/premises, diverse types of rhetoric appeals, and fallacy prevention. Regarding logic, the provided call to action, such as regulation reassessment, stems from the premises, including the increasing homelessness rates in California (Liu et al. 1). Another premise refers to the state’s widely recognized housing crisis linked with regulatory concerns (Ohanian 1). Together, the points support the problem statement while also providing justification for the recommended action. As for the rhetorical triangle, logos finds explicit use in the form of supportive numerical evidence, including home price data for California and the state’s position in terms of income inequality (Ohanian 2). Appeals to ethics, including drawing the reader’s attention to homeless individuals’ multi-faceted vulnerability that society is morally responsible for, are used sporadically to maintain a professional tone. Appeals to pathos are, however, underutilized due to the argument’s overall inclination towards facts rather than their subjective interpretations. The use of basic fallacy prevention techniques, for instance, the recognition of counterpoints, also strengthens the selected premises.
The claim presented above is supported by evidence from two credible academic sources. The report by Ohanian, a professor of economics, offers a professional critique of California’s current housing regulations and analyzes economic trends in relation to housing, thus supporting the argument (2). The article by Liu et al. proves that California’s homeless population is “distinctive due to its size,” which supports the need for action stressed in the argument (1). Overall, the claim relies on the combination of text, including separate facts derived from the sources, and rhetoric or the means of persuasion detailed in the previous paragraph. The textual evidence reports subject matter experts’ concerns regarding the housing issue, and rhetorical appeals establish meaningful relationships between facts, thus giving rise to a clear position that change is necessary.
Works Cited
Liu, C. Y., et al. “Communicable Disease among People Experiencing Homelessness in California.” Epidemiology and Infection, vol. 148, 2020, pp. 1-10.
Ohanian, Lee E. “Common-Sense Policy Reforms for California Housing.” Cato Institute Policy Analysis, no. 202, 2021, pp. 1-16. Web.