Argument Evaluation

Constance Duff

January 24, 2010

CRT 205

Timothy Boyd
 First argument

The first argument would be the comparison between automobile accidents in America

versus what happened on the terrorist attack of 9/11. The first premise is; in the reading of

Appendix 1, Section 2, “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11,” the author refers to the attack of

September 11, as an unfortunate event that caused Americans to be more prone to react with

anger fury, particularly if this tragedy hit them close to home. Another point mentioned in this

argument is the recommendation to all the Americans to consider and think about that more

people get killed in car accidents and they may occur closer to home than New York,

Washington and Pennsylvania. Lastly, author finished this article explaining that the fear in

Americans was caused by the media, and the idea of a possible next terrorist attack is a constant

reminder of what could happen soon, instead of being aware of people close to us that could

cause car accidents. The premises are dependant to the conclusion. They support all the claims

made by the author on this argument. I believe this argument is invalid, because Terrorist attacks

are planned with time and organization with advance in order reach their target and to create

fear. On the other hand, a car accident is not planned. It may just happen all of a sudden, and

one part may be responsible for the accident but cannot be accused of intentionally doing it or

planning in advance.
 Second argument

Suggest the relation between of the “malice” of the terrorists of the 9/11 attack and

15,000 homicides that occur every year in the United States. The first premise would be, “One

might say that it was the malice of the perpetrators that makes the 9/11 deaths so noteworthy…”

(p. 457). The second premise is, “… but surely there is plenty of malice present in the 15,000

homicides that occur every year in the United States.” (p. 457) “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.” (p. 457). The first premise supports the fact that the intention

to harm others is something planned with time. The author refers on the impact that this terrorist

attack caused among the American Nation and its importance based on the media and other

resources. The second premise suggests a specific number of homicides that happen every year

in the United States, but he also points to the intention to hurt or kill other people by committing

this crime. This argument is also invalid, because the author’s assumption that nothing has been

done since the attack of 9/11. In both arguments the author’s intention was to produce a strong

argument by making a comparison and relating catastrophic events, car accidents and homicides,

based on his observations and knowledge.