This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: the nation’s highways—by 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, it’s not too late to try to do what this author is suggesting....
View Full Document
- Spring '10
- Logic, Conclusion, September 11 attacks