Taylor Gant

PHIL 1250, Spring 2016

March 19, 2016
Signature Assignment
Argument Analysis
Sexual Education in Public Schools
Abstinence-only sexual education has been one of the most popular forms of education
regarding the teaching of today’s youth regarding sexual activities. In the past few years,
arguments and debates have begun to question the effectiveness of the teaching of abstinence-
only programs. In the next few pages I will be analyzing each premise in the argument in favor
of abstinence only education, including each premise’s warrants and hidden assumptions.
Issue: Should abstinence-only education be taught in public schools?
Conclusion: Yes, we should teach abstinence-only education in public schools.
Burden of Proof: In this case, the burden of proof lies with Jared, Andrea and Jennifer to
support their claim that abstinence-only education should be taught in public schools.
Major Outline of Argument
1. Abstinence-only education increases the overall success rate for teens.
a. Non-abstinence teaching leaves room for risk of STD’s and pregnancy.
b. Teaching self-regulation, importance of finishing school, joining the workforce,
and waiting until marriage all show 98% reduced chance of living in poverty.
c. Self-esteem and self-reliance are increased in teens.
2. The responsibility to teach beyond abstinence-only education lies with the parent.
a. Parents are taking charge in what their children are learning.
b. Parents know when it’s appropriate to teach certain subjects.
c. Parents know what their children are involved with.
3. Abstinence-only education does not impose on the majority of Utah’s beliefs.
a. Education should conform to the majority vote.
b. Religious practice can dictate public policy.
c. Current abstinence-only education is working.
Major Premise One

Analysis
This first premise itself I have no problem with, I simply have an issue with the facts used
to support it. In warrant one, Jared states non-abstinence only education leaves room for the risk
of STD’s and pregnancy. This leaves room for the hidden assumption that abstinence-only
education leaves no room for STD’s and pregnancy. If anything, one could argue that abstinence-
only education leaves more room for STD’s and pregnancy because teens are not being taught
how to use protection.
When Jared mentions a bill in the senate to support warrant two, he only provides an
abbreviated name for the bill, as well as no date for who proposed the bill or when the bill was in
the senate. He does not mention exactly how the programs mentioned will be taught, or what
statistics were used in the bill to support their assumptions. There also is the hidden assumption
that the teens will follow the programs exactly, to the letter, when in reality they will not.
Warrant three also has issues with its validity. The majority of warrant three sounds like
an opinion because no statistics or facts are given. The two quotes that are given do not tell us if
the person being quotes is someone we should listen to, such as a psychologist or a doctor. There
are little stable facts that actually support the warrant.
Major Premise Two

Analysis
Even with multiple hidden assumptions, I think this is the strongest premise in the
argument. In warrant one we see the assumption that because parents are teaching their children
that they will be teaching children the correct and morally correct information. If parents are
teaching their children to have sex without consent, or if a son is being taught by his father that
it’s okay to threaten or be aggressive with a women who will not have sex with him, we now
have a threat to society.
In warrant two, we reveal the hidden assumption that a parent knows every aspect of their
child’s life or personality. In reality, every adult knows this is not the case. There are a multitude
of secrets a teenager can keep from their parents. The argument that all children do not learn at
the same speed is valid, as some children mature faster than others.
In warrant three, the author says teens will make better decisions because their parents
are teaching them or are involved. We assume that just because their parents are involved, the
teens will make good decisions that their parents tell or suggest them to, when at that stage in
their lives teens are known to actually rebel against their parents. Teens may also be simply too
embarrassed to go to their parents with questions.
Major Premise Three

Analysis
Hold onto your hats everybody because boy do I have a lot to say about this premise. The
premise itself is accurate, but every supporting warrant given is weak. These warrants are based
on the idea that education cannot disrespect a religious belief, especially with warrant three.
Warrant three says that public policy can be heavily influenced by religious policy, giving the
assumption that religion and state are separate except when religion has the majority vote. (We
don’t see other states limiting liquor laws or sexual education because the majority religion says
so.)
The statistics given in warrants one are also false. I did a little research of my own and
the statistics I found have Mormon population in Utah at 66.5%, not 55%, with the 33.5% being
made up of Jewish, Catholic, Christian, and Protestant faiths. Firstly, a person could argue in
favor of the other faiths. If we are holding respect for religious practices, what about the other
33.5%? Do they not get a say because they are not the majority? As a reader, I am also less
inclined to believe the statistic saying that Utah is the 15th lowest in teen birth rates in the United
States because the first statistic was false. The entire argument seems sloppy and poorly written,
like it was pieced together only minutes before due in class.
 Warrant two also says that abstinence-only is working. And yet, she does nothing to
refute the hundreds of articles on Google that say that abstinence-only education is not working.
Instead we are provided with one statistic that is not quoted or given a source for. The argument
almost sounds completely dismissive, in that abstinence-only is correct and no other way of
teaching is correct, but there are no facts given to prove it.
Original Argument Provided