Politician: It is widely accepted that because democratic politics cannot exist without debate about political issues, and because self-governance flourishes when citizens are allowed to express their feelings verbally, a democratically governed society should refrain from interfering in individual citizens' speech. █ █████ ████ █ ██████████████ ████████ ███████ ██████ ████ ███████ ████ ██████████ ██████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ █ █████ ██ ████████████████ ███ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██ ████ █ ███████ ██ █████████ ███████████ ███████ █████ ██████
The politician concludes that a democratic society should not control its citizens’ personal appearance. This is supported by the claims that personal appearance is a way for citizens to express themselves and potentially make political statements. This makes appearance similar to the free verbal expression upon which democratic societies rely.
The politician describes an accepted attitude toward one case and draws an analogy to another case with comparable features to reason that a similar attitude should apply to the latter case. By presenting personal appearance as analogous to free speech because both allow expression, the politician argues that democratic societies should not control personal appearance, just as they should not control speech.
A logical strategy used in ███ ████████████ ████████ ██ ██
argue for a ██████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████████ █████ ██ ██ █████████
reach a general ██████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ███████████████ ██ ██ █████████ ██████
support a conclusion ██ ████████ ████ ██ ██ ██████ ████████
reach a conclusion █████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ █████████ ████
reach a conclusion █████ ████ ██████████████ ████████ █████████ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ █████ ████ ██████████████ ████████ █████████ ██████ ██