In this assignment, you will make two contrasting normative arguments about what one ought to do. Both arguments will be about the same topic; thus, at least one of the arguments will contradict your personal opinion. You will compose the arguments in standard form. That is, your argument will be a numbered list of statements ending in a conclusion. Each statement, including the conclusion, will be a single sentence that asserts something is true or infers a truth from earlier statements. Do not write your arguments as an essay.

Choose one topic from the following list:

• Should people eat meat?
• Should marijuana be legal?
• Should pet cats be kept indoors?
• Should zoos exist?
• Should customers leave a tip in a coffee shop?
• Should seat belt wearing be mandatory?
• Should children be required to take gym/physical education?
• Should public roads be used for private car parking?

Develop two normative arguments that contradict each other. You do not need to agree with both (or either!) conclusions, but you should be able to logically support both of them. Please note that the conclusion should only be one sentence, as shown in the example below.

The conclusions need not be phrased exactly the same as they are phrased in the topic list, but they do need to be logically contradictory to one another.

Choose your first conclusion and write a normative argument in standard form to reach that conclusion. This requires knowledge of the standard form of logical arguments, and understanding of normative arguments.

"Standared form" means your argument should look like a list of numbered statements, each one a single sentence. The last numbered sentence should be your conclusion, which wraps everything up. You don't need to label the statements, but remember, everything before the final sentence is building up to your main point.