1. (1) The state has a right to intervene on behalf of unborn children, and (2) this right should be implemented immediately. (3) While it may be true that a mere fetus has no rights, (4) surely a born child does have rights, and (5) these rights project backward to the time it was in the womb. This is true because (6) what happens to the child in the womb can have an impact throughout the child's life. (7) It is well known that alcohol and drug abuse by expectant mothers cause birth defects, and (8) these defects are not correctable after birth. (9) Granted, an expectant mother has the right to treat her own body as she chooses, but 10 this right does not extend to her unborn child. (11) Once a pregnant woman decides to give birth, she effectively transfers part of her rights over to her unborn child. (12) Unfortunately, however, the unborn child is incapable of securing these rights for itself. Thus, (13) the intervention of a higher power is justified.
2. (1) A manned trip to Mars is a justified scientific goal because (2) it affords a unique opportunity to explore the origins of the solar system and the emergence of life. However, (3) from a scientific standpoint, an initial landing on the tiny Martian moons, Phobos and Deimos, would be more rewarding than a landing on the planet itself. Because (4) the Martian terrain is rugged, (5) humans would not be able to venture far, (6) nor could they operate a robot vehicle for great distances, since (7) Mars's mountains would block their view. (8) Explorers on Phobos and Deimos could easily send robot vehicles to the planet's surface. (9) Using Mars's moons as a base would also be better than unmanned exploration directed from the Houston space center. Because (10) the distance is so great, (11) radio signals to and from Mars can take as long as an hour. Thus, (12) driving an unmanned rover from Earth, step by step, would be a time-consuming operation. (13) Sample returns to Earth would take months instead of hours, and (14) follow-on missions would be years apart instead of days, further slowing the process of exploration.
2. (1) A small group of people still believe in nuclear weapons, but (2) the facts dictate that nuclear weapons not only should be eliminated but (3) they can be eliminated. (4) The opposing arguments are that nuclear weapons hastened the end of World War II, they deter nations from going to war, they have kept the peace, and nuclear technology is irreversible. But (5) nuclear weapons did not persuade the Japanese to surrender. (6) New research shows that the real reason Japan surrendered is because the Soviets renounced neutrality and entered the war. And (7) before losing two cities to nuclear weapons, Japan had already lost sixty-six to conventional weapons. (8) Two more made little difference. Also, (9) history shows that nuclear weapons are ineffective as a deterrent. (10) They did not deter the United States during the Cuban missile crisis, and (11) they did not deter Argentina in the conflict with Britain over the Falklands. Furthermore, (12) there is no good reason to think that nuclear weapons cause peace. (13) Peace means the absence of war, but (14) the absence of something can be explained in countless ways. Lastly, (15) the argument that you can't stuff the nuclear genie back in the bottle is specious. (16) The question is not whether nuclear weapons can be disinvented but whether they are useful. (17) This is doubtful given that (18) not one has been used since 1945 and (19) the trend in modern warfare is toward smaller, more effective precision-guided weapons. (20) Banning nuclear weapons will not be easy, but (21) the existing ban on chemical and biological weapons shows that it can be done.
The following arguments gradually increase in difficulty. Use the method presented in this section to construct argument patterns. If a statement is redundant or plays no role in the argument, do not include it in the pattern.