Analyzing Arguments in Letters to the Editor, Instructions.
I’m trying to study for my Philosophy course and I need some help to understand this question.
Hello! The directions will be attached below!
For Letter 2, by Isabel Fierman
2. When will these upper-crust intellectuals realize that the masses of working people are not in cozy, cushy, interesting, challenging, well-paying jobs, professions and businesses? My husband is now fifty-one; for most of the last thirty-three years he has worked in the same factory job, and only the thought of retiring at sixty-two has sustained him. When he reaches that age in eleven years, who will tell him that his aging and physically wracked body must keep going another two years? My heart cries out for all the poor souls who man the assembly lines, ride the trucks or work in the fields or mines, or in the poorly ventilated, hot-in-summer, cold-in-winter factories and garages. Many cannot afford to retire at sixty-two, sixty-five, or even later. Never, never let them extend the retirement age. It’s a matter of survival to so many.
For Letter 51, by Matt Cookson
The Supreme Court recently ruled that a police department in Florida did not violate any rights of privacy when a police helicopter flew over the backyard of a suspected drug dealer and noticed marijuana growing on his property. Many people, including groups like the Anti-Common Logic Union, felt that the suspect’s right to privacy outweighed the police department’s need to protect the public at large.
The simple idea of sacrificing a right to serve a greater good should be allowed in certain cases. In this particular case the danger to the public wasn’t extremely large; marijuana is probably less dangerous than regular beer. But anything could have been in that backyard—a load of cocaine, an illegal stockpile of weapons, or other major threats to society.
This is also added to the instructions!