Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11*
We present this selection as an example of a fairly well-reasoned argumentative
essay. There is more here than arguments—there’s some
window dressing and you’ll probably find some slanters here and there
as well. You should go through the selection and identify the issues,
the positions taken on those issues, and the arguments offered in support
of those arguments. Are any arguments from opposing points of
view considered? What is your final assessment of the essay?
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, produced a response among American
officials, the media, and the public that is probably matched only by the
attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. 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. In this essay, I shall argue that this reaction was irrational
to a great extent and that to that extent Americans unwittingly cooperated
with the terrorists in achieving a major goal: spreading fear and thus
disrupting lives. In other words, we could have reacted more rationally and as
a result produced less disruption in the lives of our citizens.
There are several reasons why one might say that a huge reaction to the
9/11 attacks was justified. The first is simply the large number of lives that
were lost. In the absence of a shooting war, that 2,800 Americans should die
from the same cause strikes us as extraordinary indeed. But does the sheer
size 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, 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.
One might say that it was the malice of the perpetrators that makes
the 9/11 deaths so noteworthy, but surely there is plenty of malice present in
the 15,000 homicides that occur every year in the United States. And while we
have passed strict laws favoring prosecution of murderers, we do not see the
huge and expensive shift in priorities that has followed the 9/11 attacks.
It seems clear, at least, that sheer numbers cannot explain the response
to 9/11. If more reasons were needed, we might consider that the actual total
of the number of 9/11 deaths seemed of little consequence in post-attack reports.
Immediately after the attacks, the estimated death toll was about 6,500.
Several weeks later it was clear that fewer than half that many had actually
died, but was there a great sigh of relief when it was learned that over 3,000
people who were believed to have died were still alive? Not at all. In fact, well
after it was confirmed that no more than 3,000 people had died, Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld still talked about “over 5,000” deaths on 9/11.
So the actual number seems to be of less consequence than one might have
believed.
We should remember that fear and outrage at the attacks are only the beginning
of the country’s response to 9/11. We now have a new cabinet-level
Department of Homeland Security; billions have been spent on beefing up security
and in tracking terrorists and potential terrorists; billions more have
been spent supporting airlines whose revenues took a nosedive after the attacks;
the Congress was pulled away from other important business; the National
Guard was called out to patrol the nation’s airports; air travelers have
been subjected to time-consuming and expensive security measures; you can
probably think of a half-dozen other items to add to this list.
It is probable that a great lot of this trouble and expense is unwarranted.
We think that random searches of luggage of elderly ladies getting on airplanes
in Laramie, Wyoming, for example, is more effective as a way of annoying elderly
ladies than of stopping terrorism.
We might have accomplished something if we had been able to treat the
terrorist attacks 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 directly
related to results (as in the case of speed limits, 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.
But we focused on 9/11 because of its terrorist nature and because of the
spectacular film that was shown over and over on television, imprinting forever
the horrific images of the airliner’s collision with the World Trade Center and
the subsequent collapse of the two towers. The media’s instant obsession with
the case is understandable, even if it is out of proportion to the actual damage,
as awful as it was, when we compare the actual loss to the loss from automobile
accidents.
Finally, our point is that marginal or even completely ineffective expenditures
and disruptive practices 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.
The remainder of the essays in this section are here for analysis and
evaluation. Your instructor will probably have specific directions if he
or she assigns them, but at a minimum, they offer an opportunity to
identify issues, separate arguments from other elements, identify
premises and conclusions, evaluate the likely truth of the premises
and the strength of the arguments, look for unstated assumptions or
omitted premises, and lots of other stuff besides. We offer sample directions
for many of the pieces.
Assignment: Argument Evaluation
•Resource: Appendix 1 of Critical Thinking
•Due Date: Day 7 [Individual forum]
•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.
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?
I alreaday have one argument evaluated, I am having trouble with the second. Here is what I have so far. Maybe you could point me the right direction.
Aregument 2: "One might say that it was the malice of the perpetrators that makes
the 9/11 deaths so noteworthy, but surely there is plenty of malice present in
the 15,000 homicides that occur every year in the United States. And while we
have passed strict laws favoring prosecution of murderers, we do not see the
huge and expensive shift in priorities that has followed the 9/11 attacks."
Premise 1: "One might say that it was the malice of the perpetrators that makes
the 9/11 deaths so noteworthy, but surely there is plenty of malice present in
the 15,000 homicides that occur every year in the United States."
Premise 2: "And while we
have passed strict laws favoring prosecution of murderers, we do not see the
huge and expensive shift in priorities that has followed the 9/11 attacks."
Conclusion: (unstated) It is not the the malice of the perpetrators that makes
the 9/11 deaths so noteworthy.
Is this argument outlined correctly? Are these the premises? Is that the conclusion?
Thank you.
I agree.
Hello Ms. Sue. Are you a teacher?
Yes, Amanda, I'm a teacher.
I didn't mean to offend you. From my undertanding of this website, anyone can post answers. I am skeptical on taking advice from people who are not part of the this website. Do you work for this website? If so, how can I tell that you do?
I understand your concerns.
I don't "work" for this site; we are all volunteers. However, only a few of us "insiders" are allowed to post websites --
http://www.phoenix.edu/colleges_divisions/axia.html
By the way, we've seen this question before, and you're one of the few students who have posted a reasonable answer. :-)
SO, if i try to post a website, it wont work? i do not mean any disrespect. I just have an A in this class with only two weeks to go. This is the first time I have had so much difficulty with an assignment. So, I just wanted to make sure I was taking advice from a credible source and not some kid just messing with people. I appreciate the time you take on this website. It is a great help! and now, I am going to try and post a cite. lol.
I tried it! You were right! I can not post a website! Thank you so much for taking the time to let me know I was on the right track with my answer! Thank you for taking the time to validate your credibility! You did not have to do it, and you did! Now I can finish this assingment and go to bed without laying awake stressing! You have made my weekend!
You're very welcome, Amanda.
This is a tough assignment but you're doing great! Keep up the good work!
By the way -- even teachers, "experts," and printed or online material can occasionally wrong. It's always wise to validate your sources.
Could you possibly tell me if I am on the right track with the questions that go along with the arguments? Here are my answers.
Argument 1: “The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, produced a response among American
officials, the media, and the public that is probably matched only by the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. 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.”
Premise 1: “The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, produced a response among American officials, the media, and the public that is probably matched only by the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.”
Premise 2: “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…”
Conclusion: “…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.”
Do the premises support the conclusion?
I have a couple of reasons for believing the premises support the conclusion. The first premise supports the conclusion by showing how the terrorist’s efforts in their attack produced such a large response from the American people. Saying that it “…is probably matched only by the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941,” shows the fear of the American people and the size of their response. The second premise supports the conclusion because it tells us that striking fear in the population is in the very nature of a terrorist. I believe this shows the terrorists success in reference to their desired goals brought on by their natural instincts. The premises support the conclusion because they make the conclusion logical. I have my own simplified interpretation of the argument. Terrorists want to instill fear in the targeted population. The terrorists instilled fear in Americans. Therefore, the terrorist’s were successful in their attack on America. This may not be the exact argument the writer was trying to get across. It is what I took from the argument and why I believe the premises support the conclusion.
Are the arguments either deductively valid or inductively strong, or are they invalid or weak?
This argument is deductively valid. Its premises make the conclusion have to be true.
I will use my interpretation of the argument to show why I believe deductively valid.
Terrorists want to instill fear in the targeted population.
The terrorists instilled fear in Americans.
Therefore, the terrorist’s were successful in their attack on America.
The two premises of this argument make the conclusion have to be true. If terrorists want to instill fear on a population when they attack, and they instilled fear in America when they attacked, then their attack was successful. This is why I believe the argument is a valid one.
Are the premises true or plausible true, or are they difficult to prove?
The premises in this argument are plausibly true. The first premise says, “The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, produced a response among American officials, the media, and the public that is probably matched only by the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.” This seems like a premise that is probably true. There may be statistics or facts proving this. I am not sure if it is true for a fact that the response was of this magnitude, but I believe it is plausible. The second premise says, “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…” This may be a generally accepted definition of terrorism. One could determine if this statement is fact by locating the exact definition of terrorism.
Argument 2: “One might say that it was the malice of the perpetrators that makes the 9/11 deaths so noteworthy, but surely there is plenty of malice present in the 15,000 homicides that occur every year in the United States. And while we have passed strict laws favoring prosecution of murderers, we do not see the huge and expensive shift in priorities that has followed the 9/11 attacks.”
Premise 1: “One might say that it was the malice of the perpetrators that makes the 9/11 deaths so noteworthy, but surely there is plenty of malice present in the 15,000 homicides that occur every year in the United States.”
Premise 2: “And while we have passed strict laws favoring prosecution of murderers, we do not see the huge and expensive shift in priorities that has followed the 9/11 attacks.”
Conclusion: The malice of the perpetrators is not what makes the 9/11 deaths so noteworthy. The conclusion in this argument is unstated.
Do the premises support the conclusion?
The premises in this argument support the conclusion. I believe this because the premises make the conclusion a logical one. If there is malice in the 15,000 homicides in the United States and the malice in these murders have not caused our priorities to change, then the malice of the attack is not what made 9/11 so noteworthy. The writer shows us that the malice of the crimes is not what made the attack so noteworthy by pointing out a lack of priorities changes caused by 15,000 yearly homicides.
Are the arguments either deductively valid or inductively strong, or are they invalid or weak?
I believe this argument is deductively valid because if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. The premises in this argument prove the conclusion. There is malice in the 15,000 murders a year in the U.S. The malice in these murders did not make them as noteworthy as the 9/11 attack. Malice is not what made the 9/11 attack so noteworthy. That is why I believe this argument is deductively valid.