The two articles are arguing for or against the introduction of an internet filtering software to workplace computers. Justine's argument is that the company introducing an internet filtering software would boost productivity and positivity in the workplace. Honoria's counter argument is that internet access is not a problem and actually produces a more productive work environment. I believe Justine has the more supportive argument because it is current, unbiased, and sound.

In Justine's argument she uses only up to date facts and claims that are unbiased. She state's that the internet can be a distraction to employees and uses a factual survey to back the information up. She uses that example to show that it is an inefficient use of time in the workplace. Justine is also worried for the employees who may be sued for inappropriate or potentially harmful situations as it could damage the company's reputation. Her article is current, unbiased, and sound throughout and very professional in delivery.

Honoria's article is heavily biased and based on logical fallacies. While she does include two credible studies, one isn't within the 3-5 year old time period for up to date information. The other fact is a good use of factual and credible information but not strong enough to make up the mistakes of the article. Another of her unbiased statements is that of the internet being used as a communication device. All of her other arguments are logic fallacies and based only on her and other employees feelings and or opinions on the topic. Her tone is very defensive and unprofessional sounding, making it the less effective argument.

Justine believes that introducing an internet filtering software would make a more efficient and positive work environment. Honoria argues the opposite, that it would actually decrease freedom and happiness in employees creating resentment in the workplace. Justine has the stronger argument due to the use of more current factual information, less logical fallacies, and no biased opinions.