One argument of this essay is that we may justify our reaction to 9/11 by the number of deaths(2,800) that occurred as a result of the terrorist attacks. An earthquake in India killed approximately 20,000 people earlier that year. Every month in 2001 more people were killed in automobile accidents than in the attacks of 9/11. Automobile accidents hit “closer to home” than the deaths of 9/11 or the earthquake in India. The deaths of 9/11 do not look so devastating when you compare them to the amount of people killed in automobile accidents each month in the United States, or to the amount of people killed in a single earthquake in Asia. Do the premises sufficiently support the conclusions? Yes, the number of deaths that occurred on 9/11 do not look so devastating when compared to other ways and the amount of people that had died in the same year. Are the arguments either deductively valid or inductively strong, or are they invalid or weak? I believe that they are inductively strong.
This is the end of the preview. Sign up
access the rest of the document.