Read the article “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11”
1) Identify at least two arguments in the article.
2) Outline the premises and conclusions of each argument you find.
Answer the following questions for each argument, making sure to explain how you arrived at your answers.
3)o Do the premises sufficiently support the conclusions?
4)o Are the arguments either deductively valid or inductively strong, or are they invalid or weak?
5)o Are the premises true or plausibly true, or are they difficult to prove?
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 nderstandable, 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.
Below is one of my arguments with the required answers. Can you take a look at it and see if it makes sense?
Thanks,
The first argument in this article to support Irrational Fears after 9/11:
“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)”.
The premise is:
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”
Conclusion: Therefore the panic from Americans in the wake of the 9/11 was disproportionate to the number of lives lost compare to the victims of car automobile accidents, in fact, reason tells us we are in much greater danger from our friends and neighbors behind the wheels of their cars.
o I believe the author did not sufficiently support the conclusion. Although the author did make a reasonable claim for his argument with the facts on number of deaths from other causes than terrorism and our decreased reaction to them makes it reasonable. The comparison to a planned attack vs. automobile accidents that are by most part un-planned.
o I believe the argument is inductively strong as the author provided factual information with the example of the automobile accidents.
o The premises appear to be difficult to prove, as the premise alludes to the deaths hit “closer to home”. The author assumes since victims are from all sorts of geographical areas and social stratum, the terrorist attacks on 9/11 do not hit close to home. The author fails to understand that the World Trade Towers represented a sign of unity and power in America.
Your answer makes perfect sense -- and is excellent.
Thank you!
I think this would fall as being inductively strong yet the premises would be difficult to prove…is that a correct assumption?
You are aware of what "inductively strong" means, correct?!
THE STATED PREMISE MAKES SENSE, BUT THE CONCLUSION IS STILL VAGUE
Are your answers correct?
identify two arguments in the article Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11
Your analysis of the first argument in the article is generally correct.
1) The argument is that the panic and fear in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks were disproportionate to the number of lives lost, especially when compared to the number of deaths from automobile accidents.
2) The premise is that the victims of car accidents come from every geographical area and every social stratum, making their deaths "closer to home" than the deaths that occurred in the 9/11 attacks. The conclusion is that we are actually in much greater danger from our friends and neighbors behind the wheels of their cars.
Now let's address the questions:
3) Do the premises sufficiently support the conclusions?
You correctly point out that while the premise provides a reasonable claim for the argument, it may not sufficiently support the conclusion. The comparison between planned terrorist attacks and unplanned automobile accidents may not be entirely valid, as the emotional impact and fear associated with intentional acts of violence can be different from accidents.
4) Are the arguments deductively valid or inductively strong, or are they invalid or weak?
You correctly identify the argument as being inductively strong. The author provides factual information about the number of deaths from automobile accidents compared to the 9/11 attacks, which supports the conclusion that the panic and fear were disproportionate. While the argument is not deductively valid, it presents a strong case based on evidence.
5) Are the premises true or plausibly true, or are they difficult to prove?
You correctly point out that the premise may be difficult to prove. The author assumes that the deaths from terrorist attacks do not hit close to home because the victims come from different geographical areas and social strata. However, this overlooks the symbolic and emotional impact of the World Trade Center, which represented unity and power in America. So while the premise may have some plausibility, it may not fully capture the nuanced reactions to the 9/11 attacks.