Argument Evaluation I Argument We might have accomplished something if we have been able to treat the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in a way similar to how we treat the damage on the nation’s highways-by implementing practices and requirements that are directly related to results (as in the case of speed limit,

Argument Evaluation

 I Argument
We might have accomplished something if we have been able to treat the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in a way similar to how we treat the damage on the nation’s highways-by implementing practices and requirements that are directly related to results (as in the case of speed limit, safety belts, and the like, which took decades to accomplish in the cause of auto safety)-rather than by throwing the nation into a near panic and using the resulting fears to justify expensive but not necessarily effective or even relevant measures.
The first premise: by implementing practices and requirements that are directly related to results, rather than by throwing the nation into a near panic and using the resulting fears to justify expensive but not necessarily effective or even relevant measures.
The second premise:  if we have been able to treat the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in a way similar to how we treat the carnage of the nation’s highways.
The conclusion: we might have accomplished something
In my opinion the stated premises support the conclusion. The idea of implementing practices and requirements directly related to results, or using the tactic that will not require so many unnecessarily expenses is a good support of the conclusion that it could be an accomplishment.
However, this argument is a weak one, as it can’t prove that by using this method the true result could be obtained. The premises add probability to the conclusion. You never know what would have happened in case of implying new ideas rather than the existing ones. The premises also can be described as plausibly true because it is possible or likely to be true. Comparing the probable choice of implementing new practices with the existing solution, it shows the argument inductive reasoning.

II Argument
But does the sheer size of the loss of life warrants the reaction we saw? Clearly sheer numbers do not always impress us. It is unlikely, for example, that many Americans remember that earlier in 2001, an earthquake in Gujarat, India, killed approximately 20,000 people. One might explain the difference in reaction by saying that we naturally respond more strongly to the deaths of Americans closer to home than to those of others halfway around the world. But then consider the fact that, every month during 2001 more Americans were killed in automobile crashes than were killed on 9/11 (and it has continued every month since as well). Since the victims of car accidents come from every geographical area and every social stratum, one can say that those deaths are even “closer to home” than the deaths that occurred in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. It may be harder to identify with an earthquake victim in Asia than with a 9/11 victim, but this cannot be said for the victims of fatal automobile accidents.
Premise I: it is unlikely, for example, that many Americans remember that earlier in 2001, and earthquake inGujarat,India, killed approximately 20,000 people.

Premise II: every month during 2001 more Americans were killed in automobile crashes than were killed on 9/11 (and it has continued every month since as well).
Premise III: since the victims of car accidents come from every geographical area and every social stratum, one can say that those deaths are even “closer to home” than the deaths that occurred in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania.
Premise IV: It may be harder to identify with an earthquake victim in Asia than with a 9/11 victim, but this cannot be said for the victim of fatal automobile accidents.
Unstated Conclusion:  The sheer size of the loss of life does not warrant the reaction on 9/11 terror.
The argument premises constitute not only a good support to the conclusion but also demonstrate it.  It sounds to be a good deductive argument, or a sound one. All his premises are true and they prove the conclusion and make the argument to be deductively strong.  His premises are true which make the conclusion also to be true. It’s actually doubtful that Americans would remember the earthquake inGujarat and the number of people killed. The number of people killed in automobile crashes monthly is a good proof of the conclusion. In other words, the reaction on 9/11 is hardly justified if thinking of car accidents.

 

 

Leave a Reply