What does a Needs Case argue for?

What does a Needs Case argue for?

• A. The existence of a problem requiring action
• B. The effectiveness of current policies
• C. A justification for the status quo
• D. The relevance of historical data

Answer: (A)

A Needs Case argues for the existence of a problem that requires action. This type of argument lays the groundwork for why a particular issue should be addressed by highlighting the specific needs or deficiencies present in a given situation. By effectively establishing a clear and compelling need, the advocate can persuade the audience that action is necessary to rectify the problem. In public debate and advocacy, demonstrating a need is crucial, as it not only points to the urgency of the situation but also sets the stage for proposing solutions or alternatives. It brings attention to the real-world implications of inaction and invites discussion on possible responses. The other choices reflect different aspects of argumentation but do not specifically address the core focus of a Needs Case. For example, arguing for the effectiveness of current policies focuses on evaluating existing measures rather than identifying a need for change. Similarly, justifying the status quo does not inherently point out a problem needing action, and emphasizing historical data might provide context or support but lacks the direct call to address a current need.

A Needs Case argues for the existence of a problem that requires action. This type of argument lays the groundwork for why a particular issue should be addressed by highlighting the specific needs or deficiencies present in a given situation. By effectively establishing a clear and compelling need, the advocate can persuade the audience that action is necessary to rectify the problem.

In public debate and advocacy, demonstrating a need is crucial, as it not only points to the urgency of the situation but also sets the stage for proposing solutions or alternatives. It brings attention to the real-world implications of inaction and invites discussion on possible responses.

The other choices reflect different aspects of argumentation but do not specifically address the core focus of a Needs Case. For example, arguing for the effectiveness of current policies focuses on evaluating existing measures rather than identifying a need for change. Similarly, justifying the status quo does not inherently point out a problem needing action, and emphasizing historical data might provide context or support but lacks the direct call to address a current need.