Select one of the following three essay prompts, and write your answer on the back of this sheet
1. The Best Government in the World. Using Nick Naylor's advice to Joey about writing essays using bullshit, write your own essay along the following lines. Choose any country's government that you want, then explain why it's the best government in the world. (Nick has pointed out to Joey that the reason the question is made for bullshit, is that anyone can pick whatever measure of "best" they want: number of felons executed, degree of success in breaking down trade tariffs, and so on.) Use and identify two of the following fallacies: begging the question, false dilemma, equivocation, straw man. Use and identify two of the following rhetorical devices: euphemism, innuendo, weaseler, downplayer. Circle each of them and label each by name.
2. Product Placement and Jeff's "Libertarianism". Nick Naylor asks Hollywood producer Jeff Megall (Rob Lowe) whether he's concerned about the "health element". Jeff replies, "I'm not a doctor, I'm a facilitator. I bring creative people together. Whatever information there is, exists, it's out there. People will decide for themselves. They should. It's not my role to decide for them. It'd be morally presumptuous." Using your knowledge of fallacies and rhetorical devices, evaluate Jeff's response. If Megall decided against the product placement, would he be "deciding for them"? Would it be "morally presumptuous"? Finally, is there a point at which it makes sense to restrict forms of risky behavior (drug use, violence, unprotected or underage sex, life-risking dares) because of the chances some kids might be seriously harmed as a result? Support your answer.
3. Killing one to save many. The vigilante group that abducts and almost kills Nick Naylor might attempt to justify their actions as follows: "1200 people die every day from smoking. That's 438,000 people per year! Without Nick Naylor, the death rate would obviously be much lower. If we kill Nick Naylor, then we save some lives, probably many thousands over the years. But even if we save only a mere handful, it's still worth it." Is this a good argument? Why or why not? (Note: Both sides of the smoking issue believe Naylor's work increases cigarette sales. In fact, the Academy of Tobacco Studies is paying him along with lawyers, doctors, and scientists very handsomely.)