The city-wide curfew for teenagers should not be instituted. On one hand, it is understandable that putting a curfew on what is already the most controlled age group in society would assist in further control of the "rebellious" age group, but it also makes no sense. Putting a legal curfew in place is a violation of a teenager's Constitutional right to travel. The curfew also prevents teenagers from being able to be in a social situation outside of the government-mandated school day, and the added homework that is brought with them to wherever they must go after school. On top of that, it also prevents the teens from earning a living on their own, without the assistance of a parent or guardian. Besides all that, if the curfew was put into place and further research was done, it would be proven that teenagers wanting to go out at night, for any reason, would find a way out anyways, even if it meant risking their life to the government because of resisting arrest.
Logos refers to an argument that is based on logic and rational statements. It is intended to convince an audience of a particular position. In this case, a paragraph that uses logos would look something like this:
I believe that implementing a city-wide curfew for teenagers is not a good idea for our town. First of all, doing so would be a violation of the right of movement that citizens deserve to enjoy. Although teenagers are not citizens yet, they are old enough to be able to resent such a violation of their rights. Moreover, implementing such a rule would indicate to teenagers that they are not to be trusted, which could lead to even more rebellious behaviour. Finally, it is unlikely this would make a significant difference in the criminal life of the town as most crimes are committed by adults, and many are committed in broad daylight.
