Can some one please check this assignment for me. I would certainly appreciate it Thanks Danielle
Argument Evaluation
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.
Argument #1
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 victims, but this cannot be said for the victims of fatal car automobile accidents
Premises:
A) The victims of car accidents come from every geographical area and every social stratum.
B) Those deaths are even “closer to home” than the deaths that occurred in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. (Asian earthquakes are foreign disasters to Americans)
Conclusion:
Therefore - It is more difficult for Americans to identify with victims of Asian earthquakes than it is for them to identify with the victims of domestic auto accidents or 9/11.
The argument is deductively valid. The conclusion does follow the premises.
The premises are true; therefore the conclusion must be true. The connection between premises and conclusion is strong.
Argument #2
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.
Premises:
A) Of its terrorist nature.
B) 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.
C) The subsequent collapse of the two towers.
Conclusion
The media’s instant obsession with the case is understandable, even if it is out of proportion to the actual damage.
The argument is an inductively strong argument base on background knowledge which is not only from the matters argued but also the content and common sense. The conclusion is probable on the assumption that its premises are true.
The premises are true because there was a 9/11 terrorist attack and the information on the attack was widely publicized.
I would agree with everything with one exception. "even if it is out of proportion to the actual damage". The damage in this case was not only to property and lives but to a national "psyche".
I agree also. The same arguments can be made on the Oklahoma federal building attack, but we did not have that spectacular film available during the building collapse.
To evaluate Argument #1:
1. Determine if the premises sufficiently support the conclusion:
- The first premise states that the victims of car accidents come from every geographical area and every social stratum. This does support the conclusion that these deaths are "closer to home" than the deaths that occurred in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania.
- The second premise reinforces the idea that car accidents are more relatable to Americans compared to Asian earthquakes.
2. Determine if the argument is deductively valid or inductively strong:
- The argument is deductively valid because the conclusion logically follows from the premises. If it is true that car accident victims come from every geographical area and every social stratum, and that this makes the deaths "closer to home" than the 9/11 deaths, then it is reasonable to conclude that it is more difficult for Americans to identify with victims of Asian earthquakes.
3. Determine if the premises are true or plausibly true:
- The premises in this argument are true. Car accidents can happen to anyone regardless of their geographical location or social status, which supports the first premise. The second premise is plausible because it suggests that people may have an easier time connecting with victims of car accidents compared to victims of foreign disasters like Asian earthquakes.
Therefore, the argument is deductively valid, the premises are true, and there is a strong link between the premises and the conclusion.
To evaluate Argument #2:
1. Determine if the premises sufficiently support the conclusion:
- The first premise states that 9/11 was focused on because of its terrorist nature. This premise supports the conclusion that the media's instant obsession with the case is understandable.
- The second premise explains the reason for the media's obsession: the spectacular film footage that showed the airliner's collision with the World Trade Center.
- The third premise reinforces the impact of the film footage by mentioning the subsequent collapse of the two towers.
2. Determine if the argument is deductively valid or inductively strong:
- The argument is inductively strong because it is based on background knowledge and common sense. Given the terrorist nature of 9/11 and the widely publicized film footage showing the event, it is reasonable to conclude that the media's obsession with the case, though possibly out of proportion, is understandable.
3. Determine if the premises are true or plausibly true:
- The premises in this argument are true. The 9/11 attacks were indeed of a terrorist nature, and the media did repeatedly show footage of the airliner's collision and the subsequent collapse of the towers.
Therefore, the argument is inductively strong, the premises are true, and there is a plausible connection between the premises and the conclusion.