Argument: College courses should not have a required attendance policy.
Reason: Because students ought to have control over their education
Assumption: Students are old enough to choose to whether they will attend class, as well as accept the responsibility of their choice.
Claims: Students pay for their education. The choice to attend should be theirs.
If students can master the material and do well on tests without attendance, they should not be required to attend.
Not having an attendance policy is better for those who need the help of the professor and for those who do not.
Argument: Personal finance should be a required highschool and college course.
Reason: because the financial literacy of America is too low.
Assumption: Teaching personal finance in the schools would improve the financial literacy of America.
Claims: We are required to study courses like math, science, english, etc.., which often focus on knowledge we forget soon after taking the final exam. However, schools do little to teach personal finance, which is practical knowledge we will need everyday regardless of chosen profession.
Most American adults havea limited knowledge in personal finance (things such as planning, investing, budgeting, etc…) which forces them to live below where they could be.
A good understanding of even just the basics would lead to much wiser financial decisions, and consequently financial success in life.
Argument: The United States should do away with the current tax system and replace it solely with a consumption tax.
Reason: because the current tax system is a drag on the economy.
Assumption: A different tax system would allow the U.S. economy to grow.
Claims: The current tax system taxes effort, and rewards idleness.
The current system forces businesses to consider how to get around taxes as much, or more than, how to grow their business. This results in a weaker economy, often with businesses fleeing to more “tax friendly” nations.