Reference no: EM133319109

Question 1. Can you find any (rebuttals) that might be raised against the following argument? Can you find any holes in following argument or identify any possible fallacies?

Question 2. What kind of inductive inferential pattern would best suit this argument -- inductive generalization, statistical syllogism, causal argument, or reasoning by analogy? Explain why, using the definitions of these patterns

Case Study: I am asking my reader to understand that implementing obligatory threat assessments and limiting access for people who appear to be mentally unstable, such as those who have a history of domestic violence, has the potential to significantly reduce gun violence.

Before a violent incident occurs, threat assessment offers a preventative, evidence-based method for identifying individuals who could constitute a threat.
Before a person is permitted to acquire a gun, threat assessments allow for the examination of mental stability.
Schools can uncover numerous warning signs by implementing these threat assessments, which can prevent school shootings.
Research shows prior to most school shootings perpetrators leave numerous warning signs that are ignored.
Threat assessments can help school officials find who potentially causes threats and launch interventions to help them turn their life in a positive direction.
At the sale of guns, threat assessments can help weapons not end up in the wrong hands by examining mental stability, past record, and other warning signs.
Domestic Violence contributes to gun violence significantly according to an Associated Press review of FBI statistics, at least 760 Americans are shot and killed each year by their spouses, partners, ex-spouses, or dating partners.
Mass shootings are also influenced by domestic violence; according to a New York Times analysis, 10% of mass shootings involved domestic violence.
The amount of gun violence each year would be drastically reduced if access to guns was restricted for domestic abusers.
The data supporting the conclusion is quite strong since it directly supports my primary argument, which is that threat assessments should be implemented and that access to firearms should be restricted to individuals who are mentally ill and those who have a history of "domestic violence." The supporting data I offer demonstrates the various advantages of threat assessments as well as the substantial 10% statistic for gun violence connected to domestic abusers.

I plan to provide instances from real-world threat assessments and domestic shootings that could have been avoided if there had been legislation restricting easy access to legal firearms. I believe that both of these will strengthen my thesis and provide compelling evidence for why reducing gun violence in America would benefit both of them.