It’s not a Motte and Bailey because I don’t switch between positions. My definition of the hardline position is to “restrict the FDA’s mandatory authority to labeling and make their efficacy testing completely non-binding.”
I could have made an argument for removing FDA safety testing as well but I didn’t. I am arguing only for the Motte against Scott’s plan to expand supplements and experimental drugs.
You switch positions throughout the essay, sometimes in the same sentence!
“Completely remove efficacy testing requirements” (Motte) ”… making the FDA a non-binding consumer protection and labeling agency” (Bailey)
“Restrict the FDA’s mandatory authority to labeling” logically implies they can’t regulate drug safety, and can’t order recalls of dangerous products. Bailey! ”… and make their efficacy testing completely non-binding” back to Motte again.
“Pharmaceutical manufactures can go through the FDA testing process and get the official “approved’ label if insurers, doctors, or patients demand it, but its not necessary to sell their treatment.” Again implies the FDA has no safety regulatory powers.
“Scott’s proposal is reasonable and would be an improvement over the status quo, but it’s not better than the more hardline proposal to strip the FDA of its regulatory powers.” Bailey again!
It’s not a Motte and Bailey because I don’t switch between positions. My definition of the hardline position is to “restrict the FDA’s mandatory authority to labeling and make their efficacy testing completely non-binding.”
I could have made an argument for removing FDA safety testing as well but I didn’t. I am arguing only for the Motte against Scott’s plan to expand supplements and experimental drugs.
You switch positions throughout the essay, sometimes in the same sentence!
“Completely remove efficacy testing requirements” (Motte) ”… making the FDA a non-binding consumer protection and labeling agency” (Bailey)
“Restrict the FDA’s mandatory authority to labeling” logically implies they can’t regulate drug safety, and can’t order recalls of dangerous products. Bailey! ”… and make their efficacy testing completely non-binding” back to Motte again.
“Pharmaceutical manufactures can go through the FDA testing process and get the official “approved’ label if insurers, doctors, or patients demand it, but its not necessary to sell their treatment.” Again implies the FDA has no safety regulatory powers.
“Scott’s proposal is reasonable and would be an improvement over the status quo, but it’s not better than the more hardline proposal to strip the FDA of its regulatory powers.” Bailey again!