Brief Questions for other groups:

1. (Abolition):
a. The longevity of the arguments create legislation that could be considered
unnecessary, so how would you defend the longevity of your plan, and imbalance of
argument?
b. How will you control the protest as mentioned in section 4A clause 2, without
creating civil unrest or disobedience that cannot be contained?
2. (Prison Reform):
a. How can you argue inhumane treatment if you have not introduced basic conditions
for humanitarian regulations?
b. Since you argue the shortening prisoners sentences, do you believe that the
perpetrators of crimes against humanity, should have their jail sentences shortened
as well?
3. (Science and Reform):
a. Your explanation on the needs to what is to be improved should be a little more
elaborate since there wasnt as much background info on those issues and does not
show your argument on them?
b. Granted that your background is extensive and well defined, could elaborate more
specifically on the method of solution at hand to improve the situation?
4. (Education):
a. Could you define the actions that you will be going through to change this issue,
because they appear to have no explanation as of now?
b. Due to the lack of elaboration and support, how will you make an argument to
support this issue, if the solution is not necessarily defined as of now?
5. (Temperance):
a. Why have you not defined the meaning of Temperance? How can you make an
argue for something if your audience is not aware of what you are arguing?
b. Granted that you are mostly stating factual background information, what is the
point of your argument in this brief?
6. (Mental Illness):
a. Could you perhaps increase the length of your argument to facilitate specificity and
allow for understanding of your arguments?
b. In your plan of action, how do you defend contradictory statements where you state
that you have previously created an asylum when you created a clause to create
one?