Critical ThinOn p. 95 of Coddling of the American Mind, Lisa Barrett presents an argument in a form that might look a bit familiar: [Argument #1] “If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems like speech – at least certain types of speech – can be a form of violence.” A) Explain why this argument is poor due to a failure of acceptability, relevance, or adequacy… Lukianoff and Haidt rework the argument: [Argument #2] “If words can cause stress and stress can cause harm, then words can cause harm.” B) What argument form does this argument take? C) To demonstrate why these two arguments have different logical strengths, replace the antecedent of the implication in the first premise and replace it with anything else that you think causes stress. Does the conclusion of argument #1 remain true? Does the conclusion of argument #2 remain true?king questions: Deductive Reasoning