Assessing Cogency of an Argument
The conclusion is that affirmative action is going to be a part of our society for many years to come and it is impossible to place a date on the time when this affirmative action will be abandoned.
The premises for this argument are: (1) Transformation of society is inevitable; (2) Ministers in power are unable to sway the government from the implementation of affirmative action, (3) Affirmative action is very much part of the government's current agenda, and (4) After 10 years of transformation little has been done, that made significant difference, to remove the 342 years, or so, of damage done to black people by oppression.
Is it acceptable to believe that this affirmative action will remain part of society? In short the answer is yes. The premises show us that the purpose of affirmative action is to mete out "deliberate oppression against black people over some 342 years", and after 10 years next to nothing has changed this "status quo." (http://www.suntimes.co.za/2004/07/11/business/news/news17.asp) This points out that there is a long way to go and a lot of work still to be done to obtain equity among races in South Africa. The government is unmoved to change their implementation of affirmative action, despite many of the cabinet ministers expressing strong views towards the abolishing of affirmative action.
In the article one premises states that the transformation of society is inevitable. This is, however, negatively relevant to the conclusion. In the first premises that transformation is inevitable, there is a fallacy as there is an unstated premises that affirmative action is a transformation process for South Africa. Upon introduction of this unstated premises, despite all the premises now being relevant to the conclusion, the premises that affirmative action is a transformation process is unacceptable. This is due to the fact that affirmative action is in no way inevitable as it can be abandoned by the government altogether at any time. Due in no small part to this premises being unacceptable it fails to support the conclusion as to whether affirmative action will be apart of society indefinitely. All other stated premises provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion can be considered a plausible claim or cogent argument. The process affirmative action is a fallacy in itself, as it addresses the fallacy Ad Hominem abusively, where it undermines the race of South Africans.
The last premises state that not much has been done to remove the damage caused by oppression. This is not at all relevant the third premises, which says that affirmative action, is a priority. If affirmative action were a priority more would be done to implement it.
Do the premises provide sufficient grounds to accept the conclusion? The second and third and fourth premises are deductively supportive of the conclusion, despite the third and fourth being negatively relevant to each other. The last premises tells us much work needs to be done still, and gives a direct indication that this process will take an indefinite amount of time which supports the conclusion. However the first premises does not provide sufficient grounds as it does not directly relate or lead us to accept the conclusion.
Thus overall the premises fail to deductively support the conclusion, which makes the argument, thus the argument is not cogent, on grounds that not all the premises are positively relevant to each other to support the conclusion or the premises are unacceptable.