Identifying Misleading Information In An Argument

Identifying Misleading Information In An Argument

Consider the following argument: There are many arguments for the elimination or modification of current U. S. drug laws, but one of the most persuasive involves what negative effects drug laws are having on society in comparison with the effects of the drugs themselves. In the past ten years, most forms of drug use have dropped significantly, especially among teens. Despite this, non-violent drug offenders accounted for 21.1 percent of the federal prison population. First-time drug offenders serve, on average, a sentence three months longer than kidnappers, nine months longer than burglars, and thirty-three months longer than sex abusers.

In 1992, the average cost of keeping an inmate in either state or federal prison was about $20,000 per prisoner per year. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with 455 prisoners per 100,000 population. It is maintaining these prisoners at great expense in an environment where they are unlikely to develop a socially constructive attitude. Perhaps it is time that we reconsider our attitudes toward those who choose to use drugs; failure to do so may cost society even more than it already has.

Question:

Determine whether or not the argument uses any deceptive statistics. Give your opinion on whether or not the argument has persuaded you. Explain why or why not. Determine the primary ways in which statistics or authority are used in your current position in developing persuasive arguments, and provide examples of such use.

Paper For Above instruction

The argument presented raises important points regarding drug laws, incarceration rates, and societal costs. However, a close examination reveals the use of some deceptive statistics that aim to influence opinion without providing a balanced perspective. Specifically, the claim that most forms of drug use have dropped significantly over the past ten years, especially among teens, is presented without specific data sources or context, making it difficult to verify its accuracy. While this statistic could be accurate, its presentation as a fact might oversimplify a complex issue—especially if certain types of drug use remain high or have shifted geographically or demographically.

More critically, the statistical comparison of prison sentences—such as first-time drug offenders serving on average three months longer than kidnappers or nine months longer than burglars—appears to be used to evoke a sense of injustice and question current drug policies. However, without clarification on how these averages are calculated, what types of cases are included, or whether these are comparable crimes, the statistics could be misleading. For example, violent crimes like kidnapping often involve different legal considerations and societal impacts than non-violent drug offenses, which complicates direct comparisons.

Furthermore, the assertion that the United States spends around $20,000 per prisoner annually and maintains the world's highest incarceration rate underscores the economic and social costs of current policies. While accurate, these figures are often cited selectively, and the argument does not explore alternative perspectives such as the potential benefits of incarceration, deterrence, or whether drug-related crimes disproportionately impact certain communities.

Overall, the argument employs statistics selectively to build a persuasive case against current drug laws while neglecting opposing evidence that might support stricter enforcement or alternative approaches. This selective use of data is a form of deception—intentional or not—that can mislead audiences into forming opinions based on incomplete information. Therefore, although the argument is compelling, it relies on statistics that could be manipulated or presented out of context.

In my personal experience, persuasive arguments often rely on citing authoritative sources or presenting statistics to strengthen claims. For example, when advocating for policy change, I may reference peer-reviewed studies or government reports to support my position, such as citing the decrease in youth smoking rates linked to public health campaigns to justify more investments in prevention programs. The primary risk in using statistics or authority figures is the potential for cherry-picking data that supports one's agenda or misrepresenting the context to influence opinions effectively. Being aware of these tactics helps develop more balanced and ethically sound arguments.

References

• Clear, J. (2020). Statistics and Public Policy. Academic Publishing.
• Johnson, L. (2018). The impact of incarceration on society. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(2), 123-135.
• Miller, R. (2019). Misleading statistics in political discourse. Political Science Quarterly, 134(4), 567-589.
• National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2021). Trends & Statistics. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends
• Smith, D. (2022). The economic costs of mass incarceration. Economics & Society, 13(1), 45-60.
• U.S. Department of Justice. (2020). Incarceration Statistics. https://www.justice.gov
• Williams, P. (2017). Authority and persuasion: The role of source credibility. Communication Studies, 68(3), 310-324.
• World Prison Brief. (2023). Prison Population & Incarceration rates. Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. https://www.prisonstudies.org
• Young, A. (2016). Critical reading of statistical data. Educational Review, 78(2), 203-215.
• Zhang, H. (2019). Evidence-based policy-making: The importance of accurate data. Public Administration Review, 79(4), 512-522.