Do you find my answers after the piece of the article to be correct? Do you think my argument is, in fact, and argument?
Clearly sheer numbers do
not always impress us. It is unlikely, for example, that many Americans
*Note: This essay borrows very heavily from “A Skeptical Look at September 11th,” an article in the Skeptical Inquirer
of September/October 2002 by Clark R. Chapman and Alan W. Harris. Rather than clutter the essay with numerous
references, we simply refer the reader to the original, longer piece.
Moore−Parker: Critical
Thinking, Eighth Edition
Back Matter Appendix 1: Essays for
Analysis (And a Few Other
Items)
© The McGraw−Hill
Companies, 2007
SELECTION 2 457
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.
FOR THE ABOVE PART OF THE ARTICLE, I CHOSE THIS TO BE MY OTHER ARGUMENT.
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.
QUESTIONS---
Premise-The victims of car accidents come from every geographical area and every social stratum.
Conclusion-Those deaths are even closer to home than the deaths that occurred in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania.
1)does premise sufficiently support the conclusion? No it doesn't b/c the fact that victims of car accidents come from every social stratum does not mean that those deaths are closer to home than the others.
2)Is the argument deductively valid or inductively strong, or is it weak or invalid? I think it could be deductively valid, b/c if the premise is assumed to be true the conclusion can still be false. I also think it could weak b/c obviously it is weak. There are no facts that can make this true.
3)Is the Premise true or plausibly true, or is it difficult to prove? I think it is difficult to prove. You would have to go around the world and ask a majority of the people in the world how they would feel.
1) I disagree.
"Every social stratum" means that car accidents happen to everyone, rich and poor. I personally knew no one killed on 9/11, but I've known several people killed in car accidents. Therefore their deaths are "closer to home" for me.
2) I believe the argument is valid.
3) The premise is true. The question doesn't ask about people's feelings. It's a provable fact that car accidents happen to people everywhere there are cars.
I am not sure if I should have included 'One can say' in my conclusion. What do you think?
If I don't include it then no it doesn't support the conclusion. Why do you think it wouldn't be considered weak?
Some problems to consider:
1) Death from a single car accident rarely, if ever, kills 5000.
2) Car accidents tend not to be intentional. More people die from car accidents every month - not car manslaughter.
3) The term "closer to home" is not very well defined here. We usually make that association not based upon a physical locality, but on an emotional empathy. I live in Taiwan. My grandmother lived in Chicago. When she died, her death was closer to home than if someone died in a car accident a few blocks from my apartment.
To evaluate whether the answers after the excerpt are correct, let's assess the reasoning provided:
1) The premise states that victims of car accidents come from every geographical area and every social stratum, but this does not necessarily support the conclusion that those deaths are closer to home than the deaths that occurred in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. The argument here seems weak, as there is no clear logical connection between the premise and the conclusion.
2) In terms of deductive validity, the argument is not deductively valid, as even if the premise is assumed to be true, the conclusion can still be false. Additionally, the argument is weak, as it lacks strong logical support.
3) Regarding the truth or plausibility of the premise, it is difficult to prove given the scope and breadth of car accidents worldwide. Determining how individuals perceive the proximity of car accident deaths compared to the deaths in specific locations is subjective and can vary greatly.
In summary, the provided answers correctly point out the flaws in the argument and acknowledge the difficulty in proving the premise.