(1) If Obamacare goes into effect, then small businesses will have to provide healthcare to all their employees (Source: G.O.P.).(2) If small businesses have to provide healthcare to all their employees, then their profits will belower (Source: Economists).Therefore,(3) If Obamacare goes into effect, then small businesses will have lower profits.(4) If small businesses have lower profits, then they will stop hiring or start firing employees (Source: Economists).Therefore,(5) If Obamacare goes into effect, then small businesses will stop hiring and start firing employees.(6) If small businesses stop hiring and start firing employees, then national unemployment will rise.Therefore,(7) If Obamacare goes into effect, then national unemployment will rise.(8) If national unemployment rises, then the economy will be harmed (Source: Economists)Therefore,(9) If Obamacare goes into effect, then the economy will be harmed.Proper Form Test:The four linked arguments comprising the main argument are all deductive. In each case, the premises are relevant to the conclusion. The four linked arguments are all tri-conditionals and, therefore, valid. There are no formal fallacies or fallacies of relevance.Overall, the argument passes the Proper Form Test.True Premises Test: (1) Could either be considered an expert statement or a testimonial statement. In either case, it is problematic. If treated as a statement by experts, it must be noted that there is some probable (political) bias. It is also questionable whether the expertise is relevant (politicians may not necessarily have the relevant economic knowledge to justifiably make statements like (1)). It is also questionable whether (1) is line with expert consensus on the matter. If on the other hand (1)is treated as a testimonial empirical statement, it must be judged not plausible (for a little bit of research shows that only a very small number of small businesses will be forced to provide health insurance under Obamacare). However this premise is evaluated, it should not be acceptedas true.Premises (2), (4), and (8) are all statements by experts (economists). Such experts are relevant, credentialed, and generally reliable (by the standards of the discipline, at least). There is no evidence of bias, and all three statements seem in line with expert consensus. They may all be accepted as true.Premise (6) is an empirical premise. It is plausible and easily verifiable that increases in firing and decreasing in hiring will result in a higher unemployment rate (one could even plausibly make a case for this premise being an uncontroversial definitional statement). It may be acceptedas true.Overall, the argument cannot be said to pass the True Premises test. Premises (2), (4), (6), and (8) are acceptable, but premise (1) is not.Global Comments:The argument is valid but unsound. Its persuasiveness hinges crucially on the first premise, but this premise is controversial and cannot be accepted as true. On the whole, then, it is not a successful argument.(1) Only 3% of small businesses would be forced to provide health insurance under Obamacare (Source: Economists).(2) If only 3% of small businesses would be forced to provide health insurance under Obamacare, then if Obamacare goes into effect, then few employees will lose their jobs or not behired (Source: Economists).Therefore,(3) If Obamacare goes into effect, then few employees will lose their jobs or not be hired.(4) If it’s hard to find affordable healthcare, then it’s hard to start one’s own small business (Source: Economists).(5) If Obamacare goes into effect, then it will be easy to find affordable healthcare (Source: The Obama Administration).Therefore,(6) If Obamacare goes into effect, then it will be easy to start one’s own small businesses.(7) If it becomes easy to start one’s own business and few employees will lose their jobs or not be hired, then the economy will be helped (Source: Economists).Therefore,(8) If Obamacare goes into effect, then the economy will be helped.Proper Form Test:The argument consists of three subarguments, all of which are deductive (propositional). Premises (1)-(3) form a subargument that affirms the antecedent [note that the consequent in the conditional premise (2) is itself a conditional statement, so that is why (3) is also conditional]. The premises here are relevant to the conclusion, and the form is proper—affirming the antecedent is a valid argument form.Premises (4)-(6) appear to constitute a standard tri-conditional, but this appearance is deceiving. There is a hidden inference that renders this subargument invalid. To see this, let us suppose that Obamacare does actually go into effect. From this and (5) we can infer that it will be easy (that is, “not-hard”) to find affordable healthcare. We can’t, however, conclude from this and premise (4) that it will also be easy (i.e., “not-hard”) to start a small business. This would be to deny the antecedent (of (4)), which is a fallacy. The last argument consists of premises (3), (6), (7), and main conclusion (8). Though four statements are involved, this argument can be thought of as a tri-conditional. We can see from premises (3) and (6) that Obamacare’s going into effect is a sufficient condition for both few people losing their jobs or not being hired and it being easier to start a small business. We could therefore combine these two premises into the following single conditional: “If Obamacare goes into effect, then few employees will lose their jobs or not be hired and it will be easy to start one’s own small business. The consequent of this conditional is now a compound statement (a conjunction, and one of the conjuncts is itself a disjunction). Premise (7) then tells us that if both of these conjuncts are true, then the economy will be helped. It follows validly then (because a tri-conditional is a proper form) that if Obamacare goes into effect, then the economy will be helped.Overall, two of the three subarguments are valid, but the middle one is not. The argument as a whole, then, cannot be said to pass the Proper Form Test.True Premises Test:Premises (1), (2), (4), and (7) are all statements by experts. Such experts are relevant, credentialed, and generally reliable (by the standards of the discipline, at least). There is no evidence of bias, and all four statements seem in line with expert consensus. They may all be accepted as true.Premise (5) could also be considered