Argument Validity

The first argument that caught my attention was the argument which deaths from a terrorist attack were compared to deaths caused by natural disaster. In this instance, the author compared the deaths which were cause by terrorist attacks that occurred on September, 11, 2001 to the deaths from the massive earthquake that occurred on January, 26 of the same year.
The premise of this argument is that the United States government did not “do enough” to help the Indian government in the aftermath of the Gujarat earthquake. The author compares the United States government’s reaction to the aftermath of the terrorist attacks to the help that the US government provided to the Indian government following the earthquake. The author makes the conclusion that the United States did not react in the same manner because the victims were not American’s. The conclusion does not fit the author’s premise. The reaction to the attacks which occurred cannot reasonably be compared to the reaction to the earthquake was a natural disaster; the attacks however were carried out with malice by other people with intent. A natural disaster such as the earthquake is simply that an act of nature. This argument is not valid and does not support the conclusion.

Another argument is attacking the malice of forethought of the terrorists. The premise of this argument is that the intent and havoc wreaked by the terrorists is no different than the intent of any other murderer. The conclusion is that the terrorist’s and domestic murderers should face the same consequences in court. This to me does seem to be a reasonably valid argument. Murderers should face the same consequences whether foreign or domestic. This argument is valid and does support the conclusion.