The argument being presented in the given piece is the FBI asking permission from Apple to have the ability to access people’s private messages in their apple products. This argument came into conversation after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. The author’s claim towards the argument is that the FBI should not be able to have the ability to tap into people’s individual cell phones. Although the FBI’s idea of decoding Apple’s encryption code in order to gain access to tapping into all iPhones under service, it seems that the cons outweigh the pros of this certain situation.
However, there has to be a completely different way the FBI can develop a better way to combat terrorism without interfering with all of Apple’s customers. Given the author’s argument, there are certain discrepancies within his claims. Some fallacies in the argument include not having proper evidence for certain claims and failure to maintain credibility, such as the inability to develop a counter argument. The author, Anonymous Student, aggressively asserts their claim that the FBI should not have the power to tap into Apple user’s phones in order to combat and prevent terrorism.
Also he nsists the Apple company should not even allow the FBI to have such power in the first place by having access to the company’s confidential encryption code. The author uses sufficient support to back up his claim prohibiting the FBI from having worldwide access to Apple products. He believes that if the FBI gains access to everyone’s individual iPhones will eventually be proven to be detrimental. Regarding combating terrorism, the author believes that terrorists can easily outsmart the FBI if they gained ability to tap into people’s phones.
The author supports this statement by saying, “.. ut what happens when people know their phones are being monitored? Terrorists will find their way around it and stop using Apple phones or whatever the FBI has their hands on. “(Anonymous Student 2) The point the author is proving is that if the FBI actually were to secure Apple’s encryption code, it could all easily turn out to be a waste of time. Although Anonymous Student states that the FBI’s efforts could be proven futile, he should consider including reasons why the FBI’s proposal would be beneficial to the nation’s safety.
By doing so, the writer can appeal to both parties of the audience. Part of the audience agrees with the fact that the FBI should be denied access to Apple’s encryption code while the other party is in the opposition. In addition to logical support, the author also includes arguments that appeal to the audience’s emotion. The author brings human rights into the conversation. He exclaims that all humans have a right to privacy, and that the FBI would be intruding on this basic right granted to all citizens.
This argument is effective in gaining followers to the author’s own argument by invoking a sense of violation within the audience. How would you feel if you had no sort or privacy? This would cause people to overthink and start to filter everything they have to say, thinking that if they spoke their mind it could potentially get them in serious legal trouble. Despite the fact that the writer had certain instances of strong support, some of his claims proved to be fallacy. At the beginning of one paragraph, the writer states, “As of right now Apple will not allow the FBI to go through any phones.
The FBI on the other hand has grown angry with Apple”(Anonymous Student 1). Anonymous Student claims that the FBI had “grown angry” with the Apple company due to their reluctance to give hem complete access to the Apple encryption code. The discrepancy in his claim is that there is no proof stating that the FBI was actually upset with Apple not giving up a code that will open the doors to so many people’s privacy. In fact, the writer’s claim seems to be an inference because he fails to provide textual evidence from a credible source stating that the FBI was angry during this proposal.
After reading the customer letter written by Apple employee, Tim Cook, one can see that the FBI and Apple conducted business in a respectful manner. Neither side had ill intentions towards the other. Although Apple refused to give up its encryption code, the company states, “We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good”(Cook 1). In his efforts to strengthen his case against the FBI having access to Apple’s encryption code, the author does not effectively introduce a counter argument.
Instead, he briefly introduces the counter argument, but closes it in the same sentence by saying, “As some might say something about the FBI having control of the cellphones will help the US catch terrorists and other problems, others disagree. ” The authors nability to acknowledge a counter argument hurts his argument because it makes his claim seem more biased. If the author doesn’t depict to the audience that he understands both perspectives, that will make his argument less credible.
Not only will introducing a counter argument help eliminate all thoughts that your claim is biased, it will help strengthen your claim. Presenting a counter argument will allow you to point out all of the flaws in the opposing perspective. Developing a counter argument will appeal to the audience’s emotions as well. The ability for the author to relate to both sides of the story will ppease both opposing party’s of the audience. If the audience realizes that the author only sympathizes or relates to only on viewpoint, then they will more than likely begin to tune out the argument in its entirety.
For example, since the author didn’t touch base on why the FBI should have access to Apple’s encryption code, the part of the audience who is for the FBI gaining access to the code will most likely discredit the rest of the writer’s argument. In order to ameliorate his claim, the writer can introduce a counter argument stating that the FBI might no longer need Apple’s assistance in opening an iPhone used by a gunman in the San Bernardino, California. A source that could be used as textual support is an article pertaining to this topic in the New York Times.
The article states that, “President Obama said this month that the law enforcement authorities must be able to legally collect information from smartphones and other devices, adding that he opposed the stance on encryption taken by tech companies like Apple” (Benner). This counter argument proves that the FB no longer needs permission from Apple to gain access to sacred the encryption code. Another discrepancy in the writer’s argument is identified while scrolling through the text. Anonymous student claims, “There are plenty of alternative ways to catch terrorists” (Anonymous Student 2).
This claim is a believable, but has no evidence behind it. The writer never elaborates on the alternative ways to catch terrorists. In a sense, it is like the author leaves the audience to figure out alternative ways to track down terrorists on their own. This hole in the argument weakens the writers credibility. To fix this problem, Anonymous Student should research and list other ways that the FBI can eed out and identify terrorsists lurking across the nation. The stance the author takes in this argument is critical and opinionated.
He criticizes the FBI’s idea of attempting to tap into all of Apple iPhone’s in order to help prevent terrorism by saying that it is not a rational plan. The author’s opinion seems to be that the FBI will abuse its power if it gains access to everyone’s iPhone. He states, “This power can be greatly abused and it can lead to less and less privacy”(Anonymous Student 2). The author repeatedly refers to the FBI abusing their powers. How is the udience supposed to believe that the FBI will most likely abuse its powers if it were able to monitor all iPhone activity?
In order to gain credibility for such a claim, the author should have cited a previous instance where the FBI had abused its powers. After reading the original argument, the audience can clearly understand which side of the argument that the author decides to take. However, there are multiple discrepancies in the way which Anonymous Student conveys his stance. Fallacies in the writer’s argument include the absence of proper evidence and the failure to accommodate both perspectives of the argument.
