Critical Thinking on the Border Crossings Argument Report (Assessment)

The Argument

Some people argue that existing restrictions on border crossings are legitimate. However, a person has no control over where he or she is born and grows up as a child. Furthermore, his affiliation with wealth and social goods is influenced by his place of birth. Since both of these factors are morally unimportant, they should not constitute restrictions on the movement of people across borders.

Argument Map Scheme

Figure 1 shows a diagram of the map relevant to this argument.

1. People cannot control where they are born and do not choose their nationality.
2. Place of birth and nationality affect one’s share of wealth and social benefits.

Therefore:

1. Morally unimportant factors are not a valid argument for prohibiting the suppression of states’ borders.

Therefore:

1. All restrictions on the free movement of people across borders should be removed.

Argument evaluation

The main argument is that using electricity for automobiles is not as environmentally friendly as it is said to be. The argument is based on the solid premise that burning pollutants produce electricity. I agree with this assertion because many countries still use standard fuel-burning technologies to generate electricity. They do not in any way curb the detrimental environmental consequences. This premise is true, so it does not need to be challenged; it could be stronger with a credible source or backed up by an example. Evidence that points to a link that electricity extraction leads to greater depressing effects than gasoline engine extraction would also be relevant. While the argument is valid, not every reader will believe it for lack of evidence.

The premise for the fact that electricity extraction is harmful is the way a car battery is charged. Batteries are powered by electricity, and many cars require regular charging over an extended period. The argument is not strong enough to prove the effect on the environment. Many devices use batteries, but their use is not discontinued. An argument should be used that does not confuse cause and effect but instead makes a direct link between batteries and harm.