I have two separate arguments and I am wondering if these answers are appropriate for the questions

1. State one argument made by the author.
“Adoption should be advocated as an alternative to abortion for women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy” McFadden states, “Although the media have publicized negative reports about adoption, many childless couples would make excellent parents for unwanted children.” “Giving up a child for adoption is difficult but more ethical than choosing to abort a fetus.”

Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.

Premise: “Although the media have publicized negative reports about adoption, many childless couples would make excellent parents for unwanted children.” Premise: “Giving up a child for adoption is difficult but more ethical than choosing to abort a fetus.” Conclusion: “Adoption should be advocated as an alternative to abortion for women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy”

Is the author’s argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this.

I believe the author’s argument is valid, although I don’t think it can be considered sound because one of the premises is based on ethical or moral reasoning. I think this is not a strong argument because the “ethics” of abortion is subjective and cannot be proven as true.

2. State one argument made by the author.

“I can't be the only person who has noticed that the same Administration that supports the family cap—the denial of a modest benefit increase to women who conceive an additional child while on welfare—is about to bestow on all but the richest families a $5,000 tax credit to defray the costs of adoption. Thus, the New Jersey baby who is deemed unworthy of $64 a month, or $768 a year, in government support if he stays in his family of origin immediately becomes six times more valuable once he joins a supposedly better-ordered household.

Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument

Premises: I can't be the only person who has noticed that the same Administration that supports the family cap—the denial of a modest benefit increase to women who conceive an additional child while on welfare—is about to bestow on all but the richest families a $5,000 tax credit to defray the costs of adoption. Conclusion: “Thus, the New Jersey baby who is deemed unworthy of $64 a month, or $768 a year, in government support if he stays in his family of origin immediately becomes six times more valuable once he joins a supposedly better-ordered household.”

Is the author’s argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this.

I think this is a valid and strong argument, as the author uses facts to support the conclusion that are true. I am uncertain whether it would be considered sound because I am thinking the conclusion subjective and is not necessarily true.

I really need some guidance on this please!

For the first argument:

The premises of the argument are:
1. "Although the media have publicized negative reports about adoption, many childless couples would make excellent parents for unwanted children."
2. "Giving up a child for adoption is difficult but more ethical than choosing to abort a fetus."

The conclusion of the argument is:
"Adoption should be advocated as an alternative to abortion for women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy."

In terms of validity, the argument is valid because the conclusion logically follows from the premises. The premises support the idea that adoption is a better alternative to abortion.

However, the soundness of the argument is questionable. Soundness refers to whether the argument is both valid and has true premises. While the first premise is based on the potential qualities of childless couples, which could be a matter of opinion, the second premise relies on the ethical judgment that adoption is more ethical than abortion. Since moral judgments can vary, the soundness of the argument is not guaranteed.

In terms of strength, the argument can be considered weak because it relies on subjective ethical judgments that may not be universally accepted or convincing to all individuals.

For the second argument:

The premise of the argument is:
"I can't be the only person who has noticed that the same Administration that supports the family cap—the denial of a modest benefit increase to women who conceive an additional child while on welfare—is about to bestow on all but the richest families a $5,000 tax credit to defray the costs of adoption."

The conclusion of the argument is:
"Thus, the New Jersey baby who is deemed unworthy of $64 a month, or $768 a year, in government support if he stays in his family of origin immediately becomes six times more valuable once he joins a supposedly better-ordered household."

The argument is valid because the conclusion follows logically from the premise. The author provides evidence of the government's support for adoption being greater than the support given to families conceiving additional children while on welfare.

In terms of strength, the argument can be considered strong because it is based on factual information about the government's support for adoption compared to the lack of support for additional children on welfare. The evidence provided supports the conclusion that the value attributed to the child changes based on their family situation.

Similar to the first argument, the soundness of the argument could be debated, as the conclusion is subjective and depends on individual perspectives about the value of different family situations.

It's important to note that the evaluation of validity, soundness, and strength can be subjective to a certain extent, as different individuals may have different opinions on the strength of the premises or the soundness of the argument based on their own beliefs and values.