Do curfews really keep teens safe and out of trouble, probably not. The argument based around curfew is essentially centered around the concept that teens will stay out of trouble when forced to stay at home. However, there cases on the opposing side in which curfews actually prevent teens from getting into trouble, but just as many or more cases found teens in performing these criminal activities. In the article, “OP-ED: Why Don’t Youth Curfews Work?” by Mike Males, the issue of the concept of curfew is brought up. Do these curfews set on teens actually prevent crime, or do these curfews actually give teens more of a reason to participate in the events that the curfews were set to prevent. Males supports the side of the teens and argues that
…show more content…
By making this assumption, Males is able to use many viable reasons to argue against curfews and actually support his claim that curfews do not, “reduce public crimes”(2013, p.1, para.2). If Males’ assumption is correct and the audience does accept that teens are law abiding citizens, then many arguments against his claim about teen crime rates will be reasonably dismissed as a false reason for curfews. In fact, the assumption is most certainly true with the communities that the article is appealing too. The audience, except for certain instances, are part of law abiding, normal communities, where there are not gunfights night in and out. The assumption appeals directly to the audience and is common knowledge to the majority of the audience. The addition of the dismissal Males’ assumption creates will also make his argument against curfew even greater and causes his counter arguments to gain strength. Essentially the assumption that Males’ creates will allow him to build his side of the argument up and break down the opposing …show more content…
The structure of Males’ argument is mainly based around Toulmin method of organization and follows the residue style of reasoning. The residue style of reasoning involves removing what is not logical first in an argument. Males actually starts using this at the beginning of his argument by stating the claim of the opposition and breaking it down throughout the article, while further explaining the side he supports throughout the rest of the argument. For example, Males started with, “doesn’t it seem logical that a curfew requiring police to remove an entire group of people from public spaces for hours would at least reduce public crimes and safety risks involving that group” (2013, p.1, para.1). He then continued on to disprove this claim from the opposition with the statement, “ Well, it doesn’t. Research consistently ‘fails to support the argument that curfews reduce crime or criminal victimization’”(2013, p.1, para.2), with the addition of the source the data was retrieved from to maintain credibility. As shown, Males starts by stating the opposition’s claim and then goes on to break it down throughout the rest of the article. This follows the residue style of reasoning with first stating what is wrong, the opposition’s claim, and dismissing it. Males does this multiple times throughout his article to explain
By making this assumption, Males is able to use many viable reasons to argue against curfews and actually support his claim that curfews do not, “reduce public crimes”(2013, p.1, para.2). If Males’ assumption is correct and the audience does accept that teens are law abiding citizens, then many arguments against his claim about teen crime rates will be reasonably dismissed as a false reason for curfews. In fact, the assumption is most certainly true with the communities that the article is appealing too. The audience, except for certain instances, are part of law abiding, normal communities, where there are not gunfights night in and out. The assumption appeals directly to the audience and is common knowledge to the majority of the audience. The addition of the dismissal Males’ assumption creates will also make his argument against curfew even greater and causes his counter arguments to gain strength. Essentially the assumption that Males’ creates will allow him to build his side of the argument up and break down the opposing …show more content…
The structure of Males’ argument is mainly based around Toulmin method of organization and follows the residue style of reasoning. The residue style of reasoning involves removing what is not logical first in an argument. Males actually starts using this at the beginning of his argument by stating the claim of the opposition and breaking it down throughout the article, while further explaining the side he supports throughout the rest of the argument. For example, Males started with, “doesn’t it seem logical that a curfew requiring police to remove an entire group of people from public spaces for hours would at least reduce public crimes and safety risks involving that group” (2013, p.1, para.1). He then continued on to disprove this claim from the opposition with the statement, “ Well, it doesn’t. Research consistently ‘fails to support the argument that curfews reduce crime or criminal victimization’”(2013, p.1, para.2), with the addition of the source the data was retrieved from to maintain credibility. As shown, Males starts by stating the opposition’s claim and then goes on to break it down throughout the rest of the article. This follows the residue style of reasoning with first stating what is wrong, the opposition’s claim, and dismissing it. Males does this multiple times throughout his article to explain