In the first argument, the writer is trying to establish a plausible argument on catastrophic events, such as the 911 attacks on the World Trade Center, and how we as Americans are more susceptible to react with rage, when an event of this magnitude hits closer to home. Although the writer accurately describes, how a loss of 20,000 lives in India did not have the same form of coverage or reaction amongst the American public; it does not however, properly depict the whole truth. This was simply a statement that may be true in nature, but does not have the proper facts to support convincingly the writer statements. One such reason for the different levels of intent, in the reaction to these current events, may be that we have always seen the World Trade Towers as a pinnacle of our world dominance, whereas, the country of India has always been seen as an emerging country, where poverty and decease runs rampant. As a result, I labeled this passage as an invalid argument. The supporting facts were merely points of references that were put into the passage, so as to prove a point, without much warrant or credence.
The second argument suggests that the carnage from automobile accidents in the United States, has bought about a progressive change that has taken 20 years to perfect. If we, as a nation, took these same responsive measures, to cure and remedy the terrorist threats levied on American soil then we would have a greater degree of success. Instead, America has evolved to scare tactics on aircrafts and in the general population as whole, in its quest to crush terrorism. Again the author tries to establish an argument, with factual statements that have no strong correlation between cause and effect, once again, I have labeled this as an invalid argument.
Good job!
Note: decease means to die. I think you mean disease
evolve means to change. I think you mean resorted.
In the first argument, the writer is trying to establish a plausible argument on catastrophic events, such as the 911 attacks on the World Trade Center, and how we as Americans are more susceptible to react with rage, when an event of this magnitude hits closer to home. Although the writer accurately describes, how a loss of 20,000 lives in India did not have the same form of coverage or reaction amongst the American public; it does not however, properly depict the whole truth. This was simply a statement that may be true in nature, but does not have the proper facts to support convincingly the writer statements. One such reason for the different levels of intent, in the reaction to these current events, may be that we have always seen the World Trade Towers as a pinnacle of our world dominance, whereas, the country of India has always been seen as an emerging country, where poverty and decease runs rampant. As a result, I labeled this passage as an invalid argument. The supporting facts were merely points of references that were put into the passage, so as to prove a point, without much warrant or credence.
The second argument suggests that the carnage from automobile accidents in the United States, has bought about a progressive change that has taken 20 years to perfect. If we, as a nation, took these same responsive measures, to cure and remedy the terrorist threats levied on American soil then we would have a greater degree of success. Instead, America has evolved to scare tactics on aircrafts and in the general population as whole, in its quest to crush terrorism. Again the author tries to establish an argument, with factual statements that have no strong correlation between cause and effect, once again, I have labeled this as an invalid argument.
1 answer
1 answer