I think the first argument in the article is to support Irrational Fears after 9/11:
The Argument is :
???Every month during 2001 more Americans were killed in automobile crashes than were killed on 9/11 (and it has continued every month since as well)???.
The premise :
???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???
Conclusion : ???Therefore the panic from Americans in the wake of the 9/11 was disproportionate to the number of lives lost compare to the victims of car automobile accidents, in fact, reason tells us we are in much greater danger from our friends and neighbors behind the wheels of their cars.???
My opinion is I think the author did not adequately support the conclusion. I believe he made a reasonable claim for his argument by using facts based on the number of deaths that occurred from different causes than terrorism. The comparison between planned attacks vs. automobile accidents is a little off because 95% of car accidents are not planned events they are un-planned.
I also believe that the argument is inductively strong as the author provided realistic plausible information with the example of the automobile accidents.
The premises appear to be somewhat difficult to authenticate, as the premise alludes to the deaths hit ???closer to home???. The author presumes since victims are from all sorts of geographical areas and social stratum that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 do not hit close to home. The author needs to realize the attack on the World Trade Towers brought the unity across America. The attacked was on our heart and it this is our home. The author fails to understand that the World Trade Towers represented a sign of unity and power in America.
We should remember that fear and outrage at the attacks are only the beginning of the country??™s response to 9/11.
We now have a new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security; billions have been spent on beefing up security and in tracking terrorists and potential terrorists; billions more have been spent supporting airlines whose revenues took a nosedive after the attacks; the Congress was pulled away from other important business; the National Guard was called out to patrol the nation??™s airports; air travelers have
been subjected to time-consuming and expensive security measures; you can probably think of a half-dozen other items to add to this list.
It is probable that a great lot of this trouble and expense is unwarranted.
I believe this is valid argument with a true conclusion. The premise is true as well. We have spent a large amount of money trying to rebuild America??™s confidence. 9/11 is the first attack since Pearl Harbor that has really shaking Americans. Although the beginning of the argument is open to several different opinions. My personal opinion is you should put the past behind you and move towards a brighter future. I would say that this is a valid deductive argument.