Argument Evaluation

1. Assignment: Argument Evaluation

Resource: Appendix 1 of Critical Thinking
Due Date: Day 7 [Individual forum]
Read the article “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11” on pp. 456-458 of Appendix 1.
Identify at least two arguments in the article. Outline the premises and conclusions of each
argument you find. Then, answer the following questions for each argument, making sure to
explain how you arrived at your answers.


Do the premises sufficiently support the conclusions?

Are the arguments either deductively valid or inductively strong, or are they invalid or
weak?

Are the premises true or plausibly true, or are they difficult to prove?


Note that you may choose to evaluate invalid or weak arguments as long as you describe how
they are invalid or weak.

The 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 American reaction.”, has two premises, “Since it is the very nature of terrorism not only
to cause immediate damage” and then “but also to strike fear in the hearts of the population
under attack,” and its conclusion is “one might say that the terrorists were extraordinarily
successful, not just as a result of their own efforts but also in consequence of the American
reaction.”
It is my belief that this conclusion is adequately supported by its premises. I would say this
conclusion is inductively strong. The author himself uses the term ‘might’ and since the
definition of inductively strong is that the argument is probably true. There is room for doubt but
not much making, by this definition, inductively strong. The premises are based in opinion and
believe they are plausibly true.

My second argument “Since the victims of car accidents come from every geographical area and
every social stratum, one can say that those deaths are even “closer to home” than the deaths that
occurred in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania.”, has two premises, one being “Since
the victims of car accidents come from every geographical area and every social stratum,” and
a second previously stated premise, “the deaths of Americans [are] closer to home” with the
conclusion of “one can say that those deaths are even “closer to home” than the deaths that
occurred in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania.”
This conclusion seems adequately supported by its premises, also. This conclusion also seems
inductively strong. Since, again, the author is stating his opinion and not fact, there is room for
debate on whether this is definitively true or probably true. Therefore if we weigh on the side of
caution, this should be labeled inductively strong.