Question

Which of these sounds like the most logical to include in an argument?
The first ten amendments to our Constitution, known collectively as the "Bill of Rights," are necessary because they're needed.
As times change, our Bill of Rights could use re-examining and updating.
Most people in Europe aren't smart enough to learn English.
Today's teenage fashions are responsible for climate change.

Answer 1

Most logical: "As times change, our Bill of Rights could use re-examining and updating."

Why:
- It’s a debatable, substantive claim you can support with reasons and evidence (not circular or insulting).
- It invites analysis (what aspects, why, how to update) and allows for counterargument, which is what a good argumentative claim does.

Why the others are weak:
- "The first ten amendments ... are necessary because they're needed." — circular reasoning; it gives no supporting reasons.
- "Most people in Europe aren't smart enough to learn English." — prejudiced, insulting, and unsupported; not a reasonable basis for argument.
- "Today's teenage fashions are responsible for climate change." — implausible causal claim; would need extraordinary evidence and a clear causal mechanism.

How to strengthen the chosen claim:
- Make it specific: name areas for re-examination (e.g., privacy and surveillance, digital speech, weapons regulation).
- Provide evidence: technological changes, case law, expert analyses, comparative examples.
- Anticipate counterarguments: respect for constitutional stability, risks of amendment, originalist objections.