One of the most primary arguments made by the opponents of euthanasia is made in the following. Taking the life of a human being is murder. Euthansia, by definition, is taking the life of a human being. Therefore, euthanasia is considered murder.
             This argument is a basic form of inductive reasoning and is evaluated on the basis of its strength. The degree of the argument's strength is measured based on the evidence, conclusion and inference made. The first statement presented is the belief that the taking of a human life is murder. In many instances this statement is a fact. There are, however, many examples where taking a human life is not considered murder. This premise is too sweeping and does not recognize the numerous exceptions to the premise. The purpose of the next statement is to convey a simple definition of euthanasia. This assertion is relevant to the previous statement and related to the conclusion. The conclusion, euthanasia is murder, might perhaps be made from the reasoning but only from a narrow point of view.
             The most lacking component of this argument is the absence of a logical inference. Evidence presented is factual but it does not imply the conclusion. The conclusion, otherwise stated, is not actually inferred. The argument does not make a case to accept the conclusion based on the reasoning. It is an especially weak inductive argument. This is due to the presence of an informal fallacy within the argument. A fallacy of circular reasoning, known as begging the question, is apparent. The reasoning does not to support the conclusion. The conclusion, instead, is presumed in the reasoning.
             Supporting evidence could be provided to strengthen the argument and increase the probability of the conclusion. As it stands though, the argument is lacking in any degree of strength.
             ...