Leibniz often refers to the Principle of Sufficient Reason as something like a first principle. In some texts, however, he attempts to give positive arguments in its favor. I examine two such arguments and find them wanting. The first argument has two defects. First, it is question-begging; and, second, when the question-begging step is excised, the principle that one can derive is highly counterintuitive. The second argument is valid, but it has the defect of reaching only a nearly trivial conclusion.