Prop 22 debate instructions

Prompt:

Did California voters make a mistake when they passed Prop 22?

In the fall of 2020, California voters decided the fate of Prop 22, a new law that would make it lawful for companies such as Uber and Lyft to continue employing drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.  The companies wrote this new law and proposed it to voters after losing a series of court cases where the companies were found to be unlawfully misclassifying their employees as independent contractors.  The distinction is important because the obligations between employer and employee (boss and worker, agents within the same company) are different than the obligations between a company with another company (Lyft and its “independent contractor”)—two “independent” companies that are external to each other. 

For more background, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_22

Length/Organization: My expectation is that the assignment be four paragraphs:

(1) the first paragraph introducing the problem and the position you want your reader to hold after reading your piece,

(2) the second paragraph offering your first major piece of evidence and reasoning as to why your view should be adopted,

(3) the third paragraph offering your second major reason why the reader should endorse your conclusion,

(4) and a fourth paragraph that addresses—and tries to overcome—the likely reason why a more skeptical reader of your piece might still disagree with you despite the two reasons you outlined earlier. 

A few things I expect in good papers:

(1) They establish a clear position that they hope their reader will adopt after reading their piece.

(2) They complement their conclusion (e.g., that uber/lyft workers should/shouldn’t be treated as employees) with premises.  A premise is just a fancy word for a reason a speaker gives to persuade someone of her conclusion.  Think of premises as columns or pillars that support the structure of a building.

(3) They take into consideration the view of their interlocutor, a fancy word for the person who disagrees with them and whom they aim to persuade.