Please understand that no one here will do your work for you. However, we will be happy to read over whatever you come up with and make suggestions and/or corrections.
Please post what you think.
Thanks. It's my first time using this site and wanted to see what suggestions i might get. What i come up with is..
Legislation that cannot be enforced are disrespect for the law.
All marijuana possession are disrespect for the law.
Therefore, disrespect for the law are legislation that cannot be enforced.
And what i would take into account is Legislation that cannot be enforced, marijuana possession.
I'm also working on this exact same question in my philosophy course right now! And the search engine has brought me to this page. Anyway...
From the passage, I think we can formulate a premise and a conclusion, i.e., the sentence before "so" is a premise and the sentence after is the conclusion.
Since a conclusion has been stated, I believe we're now missing a premise in this enthymeme. Remember that the missing premise/conclusion must make the whole syllogism valid.
This is what I have on my paper:
Premise #1: legislation that can’t be enforced leads to disrespect for the law.
Premise #2: marijuana possession cannot be enforced by legislation. **assumed premise**
Conclusion: legislation making marijuana possession a criminal offense leads to disrespect for the law.
All S is P
M is S
Therefore, M is P
Not saying that my answer is correct since my assignment hasn't been marked, but I think this makes for sense and also my Venn diagram validates it.
Hope it helps,
Thank you so much Octavio. I appreciate your help. I wonder what program you're taking. Maybe i can be of help to you in some courses i've taken and maybe you're yet to take.