I am in week 7 and after week 5 and 6 am doubting my self on my homework that is due tommorrwo can you look to see if this is actually an argument the conclusion indicators were not as apparent in this reading this week.
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.
Premises: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld still talked about “over 5,000” deaths on 9/11.
Premises: Well after is was confirmed that no more than 3,000 people had died.
Conclusion: Therefore, the actual number seems to be of less consequence than one might have believed.
Rearrange your premises.
Primary premise...It was confirmed that no more than 3,000 people had died.
Secondary premise....Rumsfeld talked about over 5000 deaths...etc.
Conclusion.... the actual number seems to be of less consequence...etc.
Thanks so much can check my next one I am not sure if it 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, one might say that the terrorist were extraordinarily successful, not just as a result of their own efforts but also in consequences of the American reaction.
Premises: Since it is the very nature of terrorism not only to cause immediate damage but also strike fear in the hearts of the population under attack.
Premises: The terrorist were extraordinary successful.
Conclusion: As a result of the terrorist own efforts and the American reaction.
Can some one help me with this? Thanks
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 terrorist were extraordinarily successful, not just as a result of their own efforts but also in consequences of the American reaction.
Premises: Since it is the very nature of terrorism not only to cause immediate damage but also strike fear in the hearts of the population under attack.
Premises: The terrorist were extraordinary successful.
Conclusion: As a result of the terrorist own efforts and the American reaction.
The conclusion is not a sentence. What is your conclusion?
Is their goal merely to inspire fear? Why do they sacrifice their lives to do this?
It would seem that inspiring fear is only one step toward a larger goal. What do you think this might be? If they have not reached that larger goal, how can you characterize them as "extraordinarily successful"?
I hope this helps. Thanks for asking.
To determine if this passage constitutes an argument, we need to identify the conclusion and premises.
The conclusion is the main claim that the author is trying to support. In this passage, the conclusion is stated as: "Therefore, the actual number seems to be of less consequence than one might have believed."
The premises are the supporting statements that provide evidence or reasons for accepting the conclusion. In this passage, there are two premises:
1. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld still talked about "over 5,000" deaths on 9/11.
2. Well after it was confirmed that no more than 3,000 people had died.
The premises serve as evidence for the conclusion by suggesting that the actual number of deaths is of less consequence due to Rumsfeld's remarks and the confirmation of a lower death toll.
Therefore, we can conclude that this passage contains an argument. The conclusion is that the actual number of deaths is of less consequence, and the premises support this conclusion by highlighting Rumsfeld's statements and the confirmation of a lower death toll.