The following appeared in the editorial in an industry newsletter:"As public concern over drug abuse has increased, authorities have become more vigilant in their efforts to prevent illegal drugs from entering the country. Many drug traffickers have conse

<p style="margin-left:-4.5pt;">The argument claims that public concern has increases over drug abuse, and due to this the authorities have become more vigilant in their efforts in order to prevent the entering of illegal drugs in the country. The argument further states that many drug traffickers have switched their type of drug from marijuana or heroin to cocaine, as the formers ones are bulky and have a market where they would be punished severely. As a result, there was seen an increase in the illegal use of cocaine. The argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill defined terminology. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence and hence the argument is weak and has several flaws.</p>

<p style="margin-left:-4.5pt;">Firstly, the argument claims that many drug dealers switched from bulky drugs such as marijuana or heroin to cocaine due to the risk factor connected with the bulky drugs. But as the authorities have become more vigilant, it is clear that they would not focus on what kind of drug is trafficked. Authorities will only focus on the illegal dealing of drugs, which can be of any kind. Whether the drug is bulky or any other kind would not be factor which the authorities will be looking for. Therefore, switching from one kind of drug to other kind of drug is surely of no use because the authorities will not be focusing on the kind of drug which is to be dealed. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the factors with regard to the prevention of illegal drugs in the country. The argument manipulates the facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation.</p>

<p style="margin-left:-4.5pt;">Secondly, the argument states that the enforcement efforts have resulted in an increase in the illegal use of cocaine. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any evidence with regard to the enforcement levels of the authorities in the country. As the author primarily stated that the authority is going to be more vigilant, then there should not be any increase in any kind of drug. But there has been increase in the illegal use of cocaine. The author failed to mention what are those vigilant ways which the authority is implementing. And if the ways are vigilant, then why is there an increase in use of the cocaine. &nbsp;Without unconvincing answers to the questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.</p>

<p style="margin-left:-4.5pt;">In conclusion, the argument is flawed due to the above-mentioned reasons, and is therefore weak and unconvincing. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have all the contributing factors. This particular argument is seriously unclear and without full information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.</p>