Can some one please check this assignment for me. I would certainly appreciate it Thanks Danielle

Question

Argument Evaluation
Answer the following questions for each argument, making sure to explain how you arrived at your answers.
o Do the premises sufficiently support the conclusions?
o Are the arguments either deductively valid or inductively strong, or are they
invalid or weak?
o Are the premises true or plausibly true, or are they difficult to prove.

Argument #1
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. It may be harder to identify with an earthquake victim in Asia than with a 9/11 victims, but this cannot be said for the victims of fatal car automobile accidents

Premises:
A) The victims of car accidents come from every geographical area and every social stratum.

B) Those deaths are even “closer to home” than the deaths that occurred in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. (Asian earthquakes are foreign disasters to Americans)

Conclusion:
Therefore - It is more difficult for Americans to identify with victims of Asian earthquakes than it is for them to identify with the victims of domestic auto accidents or 9/11.
The argument is deductively valid. The conclusion does follow the premises.
The premises are true; therefore the conclusion must be true. The connection between premises and conclusion is strong.

Argument #2
But we focused on 9/11 because of its terrorist nature and because of the
spectacular film that was shown over and over on television, imprinting forever the horrific images of the airliner’s collision with the World Trade Center and the subsequent collapse of the two towers. The media’s instant obsession with
the case is understandable, even if it is out of proportion to the actual damage,as awful as it was, when we compare the actual loss to the loss from automobile
accidents.

Premises:
A) Of its terrorist nature.

B) The spectacular film that was shown over and over on television, imprinting forever the horrific images of the airliner’s collision with the World Trade Center.

C) The subsequent collapse of the two towers.

Conclusion
The media’s instant obsession with the case is understandable, even if it is out of proportion to the actual damage.

The argument is an inductively strong argument base on background knowledge which is not only from the matters argued but also the content and common sense. The conclusion is probable on the assumption that its premises are true.

The premises are true because there was a 9/11 terrorist attack and the information on the attack was widely publicized.

Answer 1

I would agree with everything with one exception. "even if it is out of proportion to the actual damage". The damage in this case was not only to property and lives but to a national "psyche".

Answer 2

I agree also. The same arguments can be made on the Oklahoma federal building attack, but we did not have that spectacular film available during the building collapse.