In the class discussion that I attended, main topic that swayed my thoughts was mainly on the fallacy statements that tabled. The statements in a way do not have any scientific proof but in terms of logical reasoning, they sometimes hold water. For instance, one may contend a person who has never pursued political science is devoid of necessary traits meant to lead a state.  This comprised the core topic of discussions, which raised many questions among fellow classmates. In my own reading in the book (Woods 4), it contends fallacies are agent-based reasoning of a concept and a persuasive argument lacking logical support to its conclusion.

Technically, according to line of reasoning on the topic, it is fallacious in the sense that it appeal to fear of students by implicitly threatening them by the course they take. In real sense, does it mean that only students who have done political science have the potential of ruling the country by becoming presidents, senators and other political seats? No study or proof has revealed that a course a person study directly linked to political fraternity. This is a lie because in the history of US presidents five doctors have been presidents.

In my own thought, questions raised by fellow students and restructuring of the argument shed   little acceptance in my line of thought. It is true that the political science students have upper hand in political matters than students taking other courses but this does not imply they are successful once they get into the “arena.”

In my own conclusion on the study topic in argument, I strongly agree that political science students have upper hand in politics than students taking other courses. However, it is false to contend that only political science students can become politicians. In addition, how social, inventive and upright a one is enables him have a leadership trait, which political arena needs (Woods 169)