In the first argument, the writer is trying to establish a plausible argument on catastrophic events, such as the 911 attacks on the World Trade Center, and how we as Americans are more susceptible to react with rage, when an event of this magnitude hits closer to home. Although the writer accurately describes, how a loss of 20,000 lives in India did not have the same form of coverage or reaction amongst the American public; it does not however, properly depict the whole truth. This was simply a statement that may be true in nature, but does not have the proper facts to support convincingly the writer statements. One such reason for the different levels of intent, in the reaction to these current events, may be that we have always seen the World Trade Towers as a pinnacle of our world dominance, whereas, the country of India has always been seen as an emerging country, where poverty and decease runs rampant. As a result, I labeled this passage as an invalid argument. The supporting facts were merely points of references that were put into the passage, so as to prove a point, without much warrant or credence.
The second argument suggests that the carnage from automobile accidents in the United States, has bought about a progressive change that has taken 20 years to perfect. If we, as a nation, took these same responsive measures, to cure and remedy the terrorist threats levied on American soil then we would have a greater degree of success. Instead, America has evolved to scare tactics on aircrafts and in the general population as whole, in its quest to crush terrorism. Again the author tries to establish an argument, with factual statements that have no strong correlation between cause and effect, once again, I have labeled this as an invalid argument.
In the first argument, the writer is trying to establish a plausible argument on catastrophic events, such as the 911 attacks on the World Trade Center, and how we as Americans are more susceptible to react with rage, when an event of this magnitude hits closer to home. Although the writer accurately describes, how a loss of 20,000 lives in India did not have the same form of coverage or reaction amongst the American public; it does not however, properly depict the whole truth. This was simply a statement that may be true in nature, but does not have the proper facts to support convincingly the writer statements. One such reason for the different levels of intent, in the reaction to these current events, may be that we have always seen the World Trade Towers as a pinnacle of our world dominance, whereas, the country of India has always been seen as an emerging country, where poverty and decease runs rampant. As a result, I labeled this passage as an invalid argument. The supporting facts were merely points of references that were put into the passage, so as to prove a point, without much warrant or credence.
The second argument suggests that the carnage from automobile accidents in the United States, has bought about a progressive change that has taken 20 years to perfect. If we, as a nation, took these same responsive measures, to cure and remedy the terrorist threats levied on American soil then we would have a greater degree of success. Instead, America has evolved to scare tactics on aircrafts and in the general population as whole, in its quest to crush terrorism. Again the author tries to establish an argument, with factual statements that have no strong correlation between cause and effect, once again, I have labeled this as an invalid argument.
Good job!
Note: decease means to die. I think you mean disease
evolve means to change. I think you mean resorted.
Based on your explanation, it seems like you have labeled both arguments as invalid because they lack proper facts and supporting evidence. To determine if an argument is valid or not, we need to evaluate the reasoning and evidence presented. Here's how you can further analyze the arguments to support your evaluation:
1. The first argument:
a. Identify the main claim: The writer is trying to establish that Americans react with more rage when catastrophic events like the 9/11 attacks occur closer to home.
b. Examine the supporting evidence: The writer mentions the disparity in coverage and reaction between the 9/11 attacks and a loss of 20,000 lives in India.
c. Evaluate the evidence: Consider whether the mentioned disparity in coverage and reaction is a sufficient justification for the claim. Does it provide enough support to establish a causal relationship between proximity and rage? You mentioned that the writer lacks proper facts to support their statements. Identify what specific facts are missing or needed to strengthen the argument.
2. The second argument:
a. Identify the main claim: The writer suggests that the responsive measures taken for automobile accidents can be successful in countering terrorist threats on American soil.
b. Examine the supporting evidence: The writer mentions the progression of responsive measures for automobile accidents over 20 years.
c. Evaluate the evidence: Assess whether the evidence presented effectively supports the claim. Consider if there is a logical and relevant connection between the success in countering automobile accidents and applying the same measures to terrorism. You mentioned a lack of strong correlation between cause and effect. Explore what specific cause-and-effect relationships are missing or unclear in the argument.
By carefully analyzing the claims, evidence, and reasoning provided in each argument, you can determine if they are valid or not. Remember, validity depends on the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion, as well as the strength and sufficiency of the evidence presented.