Argument_Evaluation

Argument Evaluation University of Phoenix CRT/205 Argument Evaluation First Argument: 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 reaction. In other words, we could have reacted more rationally and as a result produced less disruption in the lives of our citizens. (Moore−Parker,  2007, p. ). The premise 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 terrorists wee extraordinarily successful, not just as a result of their own efforts but also in consequence of the Americans reaction.” The conclusion is, “In other words we could have reacted more rationally and as a result produced less disruption in the lives of our citizens. I find that the premises do support the conclusion, because it is a fact that Americans all over the world were struck with fear. It is also a fact that the terrorists were “extraordinarily successful” in their efforts and in the way that these actions affected Americans. Still to this day if a person is asked how they felt that day they will tell you they were scared, shocked, and in fear and disbelieve. I find that the argument is deductively valid because the premise and the conclusion support each other. I believe that the premises are true because they are easy to prove. You can research videos of that day and see plenty of people in shock, disbelieve, and fear of the events that took place and of what else might happen in the future. Second Argument: 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 (Moore−Parker,  2007, p. ). The premises is, “It is unlikely, for example, that many Americans remember that, earlier in 2001, an earthquake in Gujarat, India killed approximately 20,000 people. The conclusion is, “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.” I do not find that the premises support the conclusion because he is basing his conclusion on his assumption instead of on facts. He has no hard evidence that shows that Americans were not affected by the events of the earthquakes, so his conclusion can’t be proved. I find that the argument was weak because although he provided facts about how many people died in the earthquake and it could prove that more people died in the earthquake than in the events of the terrorist attacks, he did not provided prove about how Americans felt for the people that suffered in the earthquake event. I feel that the argument is plausibly true because he did give us facts about the earthquake and the approximate number of deaths, he lacked the supporting evident he needed to get me to believe how Americans felt seeing what happen to the people of India. Reference Moore−Parker. (2007). Critical Thinking, Eighth Edition (8th ed.). New York, NY: The McGraw−Hill Companies.