Reference no: EM133404264

Question

From a letter to the editor: "Recently the California Highway Patrol stopped me at a drunk-drive checkpoint. Now, I don't like drunk drivers any more than anyone else. I certainly see why the police find the check- point system effective. But I think our right to move about freely is much more important. If the checkpoint system continues, then next there will be checkpoints for drugs, seat belts, infant car seats, drivers' licenses. We will regret it later if we allow the system to continue."

In the argument above what are the premises and conclusion? Are there any hidden premises or assumption? If so, what are they? Is the argument strong or weak, cogent or uncogent?