is the following argument valid, sound or stong and what is the reason/rationale: Too many seniors, disabled veterans, and families with children are paying far too much of their incomes for housing. Proposition 168 will help clear the way for affordable housing construction for these group. Proposition 168 reforms the outdated requirement for an election before affordable housing can even be approved. Requiring elections for every publicly assisted housing venture, even when there is no local oppostion, is a waste of taxpayers' money. No other state constituition puts such a roadblock in front of efforts to house senior citizens and others in need. Please support Proposition 168.
To evaluate the argument, we need to consider if it is valid, sound, or strong, and the reason behind it. Let's break it down step by step:
Argument:
1. Too many seniors, disabled veterans, and families with children are paying too much of their incomes for housing.
2. Proposition 168 will help clear the way for affordable housing construction for these groups.
3. Proposition 168 reforms the outdated requirement for an election before affordable housing can be approved.
4. Requiring elections for every publicly assisted housing venture, even when there is no local opposition, is a waste of taxpayers' money.
5. No other state constitutions put such roadblocks in front of efforts to house senior citizens and others in need.
6. Please support Proposition 168.
Now let's examine the criteria:
1. Validity: Validity refers to the logical structure of the argument – whether the conclusion follows logically from the premises. In this case, the argument does seem to have valid logical structure because it presents reasons to support the conclusion that Proposition 168 should be supported.
2. Soundness: Soundness requires both validity and true premises. To determine if the argument is sound, we need to verify if the premises are true. While the statements made about seniors, disabled veterans, and families struggling with housing costs are plausible, this would require further evidence to establish the truth of the premises. Therefore, we cannot assess the soundness of the argument.
3. Strength: Strength refers to the persuasive force of the argument's premises. In this case, the argument seems to have some strength since it appeals to the common sense notion that excessive housing costs for vulnerable groups should be addressed and that reforming outdated requirements could be beneficial.
The rationale behind the argument is to advocate for the support of Proposition 168. The argument highlights the issue of affordable housing costs for seniors, disabled veterans, and families, suggests that Proposition 168 will help address this problem by reforming election requirements, and argues against the wastefulness of requiring an election for every publicly assisted housing venture even when there is no local opposition. The argument further contrasts the situation with other state constitutions, implying that Proposition 168 aligns with efforts to house those in need.
Ultimately, the soundness of the argument would depend on the truth of the premises, which would require further research or evidence.