Assignment Week 7

.      Assignment: Argument Evaluation Due Sunday

•        Read the article “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11” on pp. 456–458 of Appendix 1.

•        Identify at least two arguments in the article.

• Outline the premises and conclusions of each argument you find.

• Then, answer the following questions for each argument, making sure to explain how you arrived at your answers.

  Argument #1 is comparing 9/11 to automobile accidents

• Do the premises sufficiently support the conclusions?

Yes, the premise sufficiently supports the conclusion.

• Are the arguments either deductively valid or inductively strong, or are they invalid or weak?

This argument is weak. One cannot plan an automobile accident, unlike 9/11, which was premeditated and organized by terrorist to be carried out.

• Are the premises true or plausibly true, or are they difficult to prove?

The premise is true because they fit, and are not hard to prove.  

 Argument #2 compares the Natural disaster in India to the terrorist attach of 9/11.

• Do the premises sufficiently support the conclusions?

Yes, the premise supports the conclusion.

• Are the arguments either deductively valid or inductively strong, or

are they invalid or weak?

This argument is weak because the author is comparing 9/11 an attack at home to a disaster in India, which killed 20,000. The impact of 9/11 would naturally be greater on Americans because this attack happened at home.

• Are the premises true or plausibly true, or are they difficult to prove?

The premise is true, and not difficult to prove; per this was a natural disaster.