Although the stated argument is non-deductively valid, it is weak. This can be assessed by looking at the truth of the premises as well as the inference drawn. Even with the current existence of the tax, many people continue to drive their children to school, work, and shopping malls, despite the fact that the premise justifying the need for a reduction in carbon tax is very weak. As a result, the conclusion is tainted. Furthermore, the inference is flawed; by stating that people must "be able" to drive, the conclusion is likely, rendering the argument ineffective.
Part I: Evaluation of Argument
Because the first and second premises both support the conclusion, this argument is powerful. The author concludes that there is a need for supervised injection sites for all opioid users; this is supported by the first premise, opioid crisis is a major health concern, and the second premise, the distributed naloxone kits are inadequate. Both premises strongly support the idea that exposure to opioid can cause physical or health impacts. Since the measures put in place (premise two) is not effective, there is a need to use a proactive approach (conclusion). As such, the argument is cogent.
Part II: Counterexamples
Anyone who gets a total score of more than 90% on the tests and assignment passes MDSC 205. John scored 85% on his first assignment. John also scored 95% on the second assignment. So he will still pass the test.Either you went to the party or you went home. You went to the party. So it is likely that you stayed out till late at night.
Part III
H ⟶ I
~I
H v N
(M v N) ⟶ S MT
M v N
S DS
D ⟶ E
E ⟶ G
D ⟶ G
B v D
B v G
F & ~B
F v G DS