Homework Help Forum: CRT/205

Posted by Linda on Sunday, October 11, 2009 at 6:39pm.

Instructions • 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. o Do the premises sufficiently support the conclusions? o Are the arguments either deductively valid or inductively strong, or are they invalid or weak? o Are the premises true or plausibly true, or are they difficult to prove? • Note that you may choose to evaluate invalid or weak arguments as long as you describe how they are invalid or weak. Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11*The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, produced a response among Americanofficials, the media, and the public that is probably matched only by theattack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Since it is the very nature of terrorism notonly to cause immediate damage but also to strike fear in the hearts of thepopulation under attack, one might say that the terrorists were extraordinarilysuccessful, not just as a result of their own efforts but also in consequenceof the American reactio6 months ago Additional Details6 months agoIn this essay, I shall argue that this reaction was irrationalto a great extent and that to that extent Americans unwittingly cooperatedwith the terrorists in achieving a major goal: spreading fear and thusdisrupting lives. In other words, we could have reacted more rationally and asa result produced less disruption in the lives of our citizens.There are several reasons why one might say that a huge reaction to the9/11 attacks was justified. The first is simply the large number of lives thatwere lost. In the absence of a shooting war, that 2,800 Americans should diefrom the same cause strikes us as extraordinary indeed. But does the sheersize of the loss of life warrant the reaction we saw?clearly sheer numbers do not always impress us. It is unlikely, for example that many Americans remember that, ealier in 2001, an eathhquake in Gujarat, India killed approximately 20, 000 people.One might explain the difference in reaction by saying that we normally respond more stongly to the deaths of Americans closer to home than to 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 in 9/11. and it has continued evry month since as well. Since the victims of car accidents come from every geographical area and social stratum, one can say that those deaths are even "closser to home" than the deaths that occured 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 car accidents.We should remember that fear and outrage at the attacks are only the beginning of the country's response time. Billions have been spent on beefing up security and in tracking terrorist and potential terrorist.More have been spent on supporting airlines whose revenues took a nosedive after the attacks. Congress was pulled away from other important business.The National Guards were called out to patrol the airports,travelers have been subjected to time consuming and expensive security measures. It is probably that a great lot of this trouble and expense is unwanted.We think that random searches of luggage of elderly ladies getting on airplanes is more effective as a way of annoying elderly ladies than of stopping terrorism. We might have accomplised somthing if we had been able to treat the terrorist attack of 9/11 in a way similar to how we treat the carnage on the nation's highways-by implementing practices and requirements that are differently related related to results ( as in the case of speed limit, safety belts, and the like, which took decades to in the cause of auto safety)- rather than throwing the nation into a near panic an using the resulting fears to justify expensive but not necessarily effective or even relevant measures. Finally, our point is that marginal or even completely ineffective expenditures and disruptive practices are have taken our time, attention and national treasure away from other matters with more promise of making the country a better place. We seem to have all begun to think of ourselves as terrorist targets, but in fact, reason tells us we are in much greater danger from our friends and neighbors behind the wheels of their cars. My Answers:Are these anywhere near correct? 1. “Since it is the very nature of terrorism not only to cause immediate damage but also to strike fear in the hearts of the population under attack, one might say that the terrorists were extraordinarily successful, not just as a result of their own efforts but also in consequence of the American reaction.” The premises of this argument is, “Since it is the very nature of terrorism not only to cause immediate damage but also to strike fear in the hearts of the population under attack” and the conclusion is, “one might say that the terrorists were extraordinarily successful, not just as a result of their own efforts but also in consequence of the American reaction” In other words, our hysteria essentially brought additional satisfaction to the terrorists in addition to the destruction and loss of life. Fear is something which cannot be measured so I believe the premise did not completely support the conclusion. However, I think it provides adequate grounds to make it a believable argument. I believe this argument is inductively strong in the sense that Americans did help the terrorists succeed because of our overwhelming emotional reaction at the time of the attack. I believe the premise is plausibly true because we are not able to measure the fear that 9/11 or other events in history created. Although I do believe the writer to be persuasive and I understand the point the writer is making about the degree of fear and comparing it to Pearl Harbor. I suppose when a person lives through events such as these, one may think one has an understanding of the different levels of that fear. 2. “We seem to have all begun to think of ourselves as terrorist targets, but, in fact, reason tells us we are in much greater danger from our friends and neighbors behind the wheels of their cars.” The premise is, “We seem to have all begun to think of ourselves as terrorist targets” and the conclusion is, “reason tells us we are all in much greater danger from our friends and neighbors behind the wheels of their cars.” I believe the premise does not sufficiently support this conclusion. Even if Americans are feeling like terrorist targets, it does not support the statement that there is more potential danger from neighbors and friend driving down the street. I believe that this is a weak argument because the premise is not necessarily true. We Americans have not all begun to think of ourselves as terrorist targets. While the conclusion may be true, we probably are in more danger from our friends and neighbors behind the wheels of their cars, the premise is false. The premise is difficult to prove. Perhaps immediately after 9/11, many Americans were feeling like “terrorist targets” but today it would be hard to prove that the majority of Americans are still feeling this way. How would one prove it, take a poll?

• CRT/205 - Ms. Sue, Sunday, October 11, 2009 at 6:58pm

  Your answers are very good. And yes, the only way to prove that Americans feel they are terrorist targets is to take polls.

  
  

Answer this Question

First Name:
School Subject:
Answer: