There are certain myths surrounding the concept of welfare that contribute to the heated debates. Why is welfare a dilemma in American politics? Why are welfare programs, which are intended to help the poor, viewed as a problem? How was the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which ended welfare as we knew it, finally enacted in the U.S. in 1996? The use of policy arguments can contribute to reasonable debates on the ethical and moral issues of PRWORA. In this paper, we examine the structure of PRWORA's policy arguments and their role in interpreting the relevant information of welfare policy. The results of this study explain the reasons why the same information may lead to markedly different and often conflicting welfare policy claims, depending on the assumptions used to conduct policy arguments or debates.