How do I Identify the deductive arguments in standard form in the story below?

Example: Chuck requires training to handle evidence properly. All new Police Officers require training to handle evidence properly. Chuck is a new Police Officer.

P1. All new Police Officers require training to handle evidence properly.

P2. Chuck is a new Police Officer.

____________________________________________________________

C3: Chuck requires training to handle evidence properly.

Form: Predicate Instantiation. All P1s are P2s. X is a P1. Therefore X is a P2.

THE STORY:

I read a fairly recent report by a journalist who asked people across the country how they felt about policing and corrections in Canada. I was surprised by some of the responses I read.

Some people said that police are ineffective. They said that either the police are there to make the community safe or the police are just sitting around collecting a pay check. Since the community is not totally safe, then it is clear that the police are just sitting around doing nothing but collecting a pay check.

I was surprised to hear such views but it did come up a few times. I spoke with a number of people who said that the problem with the view that the police are ineffective is that people don't "see" Police Officers enough. If people could see and engage with Police Officers more often, then the community could see the valuable work that Police Officers are doing. And if people could see the valuable work that Police Officers are doing, then people would feel safer and be more supportive of Police Officers. It follows that if only people could see and engage with Police Officers more, then people would feel safer and be more supportive of Police Officers.

Many of the complaints I read about were regarding the role of incarceration in Canada. Quite a few people felt that either correctional institutions are helpful by containing harmful individuals and offering them opportunities to reform or correctional institutions are harmful by offering a place for criminals to meet and form gangs and waste taxpayer money. These people felt that Canadian correctional institutions are not helping society or inmates so it is clear that correctional institutions are harmful by offering a place for criminals to meet and form gangs.

Such a view is too simplistic; the reality cannot simply be reduced in this case to "either helpful or harmful." In fact I think that the opposite view is more correct. The last couple of decades have seen a lot of positive change in the corrections system. For example, there is an increase in the use of conditional sentencing and similar reforms. Many in the field reason that if there is an increase in conditional sentencing and similar reforms then there will be a reduction in incarceration rates. Further, if there is a reduction in incarceration rates then many wrongdoers will spend less time around prison gangs. So we can conclude that many wrongdoers are actually spending less time around prison gangs, not more time.

Identify the deductive arguments. Having done so, re-write each argument in standard form and indicate the name of the form that the argument has.