Argument Evaluation - the nations highwaysby implementing...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
The first argument I chose is, “We could have reacted more rationally and as a result produced less disruption in the lives of our citizens”. We could have reacted more rationally is the premise, and as a result produced less disruption in the lives of our citizens, is the conclusion. Do the premises sufficiently support the conclusion? The premise does sufficiently support the conclusion. Are the arguments either deductively valid or inductively strong, or are they invalid or weak? I believe the argument is inductively strong because the premises being true would make the conclusion probably true. Are the premises true or plausibly true, or are they difficult to prove? The premise is difficult to prove because action has already been taken and still being taken to this day. You can’t go back and say, let’s take this approach. The second argument I chose is, “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
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: the nations highwaysby 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). Do the premises sufficiently support the conclusion? I believe the premise does not support the conclusion. Are the arguments either deductively valid or inductively strong, or are they invalid or weak? I believe the argument is invalid and weak. I think the argument is weak and invalid because it is suggesting that things could have been accomplished by treating 9/11 as you would the carnage on a highway. That is silly in my opinion. How do you treat a disaster as highway carnage? I hope I am right here. Are the premises true or plausibly true, or are they difficult to prove? I suppose the premise could be plausibly true, its not too late to try to do what this author is suggesting....
View Full Document

Page1 / 2

Argument Evaluation - the nations highwaysby implementing...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online