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?·
In the first premise the author supports the conclusion by stating that we overreacted by hearing that Secretary of Defense Ronald Rumsfeld kept saying that over 5000 deaths happened on 9/11 when actually it was much less. That when 20,000 people died in an earthquake in India the American people did not panic or overreact. By overreacting we gave the terrorists success in the lives that was lost as well as in putting irrational fears in the American people. The second premise does not sufficiently support the conclusion. The author gave his opinion on the money that has been spent but does not clearly give facts to support his premise. He is mad about all the extra security that one may have to go through when going to the airport. That all these measures of protection still does not prevent terrorism.
Are the arguments either deductively valid or inductively strong, or are they invalid or weak?· In the first premise it is inductively strong as our instant panic did take America to a heighten level. The terrorists did what they set out to do and as Americans we played right into their hands giving them more than what they expected. The second argument is weak because the author cannot prove that the measures we have in place for terrorism are not working. While billions of dollars have been spent on American safety and it might be an inconvenience for our safety does not mean the measures in place are not working.
Are the premises true or plausibly true, or are they difficult to prove? The first premise is plausibly true as the author...