Business Communications

Like the article that this essay was based on, it is written with an exposed agenda. Most of the arguments that are made are blurred, solely opinion or unable to be proven with all the given data.  After also reading the article, “A Skeptical Look at September 11th,” the authors made a much better attempt to explain their overall theory than the author of this essay who like a parrot repeats the points, but with the hollow repetition of a bird. Throughout the paper there is use of fallacies, finger pointing, and an overall and purposeful misunderstanding of the American people. In one point, I find it amusing as I will discuss in a moment that the author uses Donald Rumsfeld to support a point, but the same “mistake” that Rumsfeld used, the author also made. Overall I find the essay to be lacking in-depth, and the essay falls flat in trying to prove the stated thesis. The central mistake is that the author attempts to blame an over-reaction by the politicians in government on the American people in general. Although the people elected the officials, every politician believes that the last best hope of humanity lies in government itself rather than the people themselves. This mistake in understanding that the author points the finger to the wrong group and ultimately makes the argumentative essay lose its message however important the message may have been.

Argument 1:

There are several reasons why one might say that a huge reaction to the 9/11 attacks was justified. The first is simply the large number of lives that were lost. In the absence of a shooting war, that 2,800 Americans should die from the same cause strikes us as extraordinary indeed. But does the sheer size of the loss of life warrant the reaction we saw? Clearly sheer numbers do not always impress us. It is unlikely, for example, that many Americans remember that,  earlier in 2001, an earthquake in Gujarat, India, killed approximately 20,000 people. One might explain the difference in reaction by saying that we naturally respond more strongly to the deaths of Americans closer to home than to those of others halfway around the world. But then consider the fact that,  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). 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 victim, but this cannot be said for the victims of fatal automobile accidents.

        Although the entire paragraph can be considered a premise of the overall essay, I have underlined several points that stand out as the main evidence of the author’s argument. The overall arguments I can consider to be valid, in that it has the structure of an argument but I  would not consider this a strong nor sound argument. I find the argument weak in that facts were used along with several premises based on generalizations, and the premises do not create a logical progression of the argument leading to the conclusion. In fact the use of three vastly different events leads us to another conclusion if followed to its correct end. The attack of the World Trade Center in 2001 was the worst attack of this type in world history; the other difference is that the extremists used a completely new tactic that makes every nation vulnerable to a suicidal missile attack from anywhere at any time. The second premise is the use of the Gujarat Earthquake. Since the United States is the foremost giver of charitable donations worldwide and this author’s worldview is possibly based on the United Nations model rather than an isolationist worldview, a simple search for U.S. worldwide donations would demonstrate the inherent mistake in this premise. But overall the author is not interested in both sides of the issue, but wants to focus on the overall agenda. The earthquake is also a completely different event than the terrorist attack. One was an attack on the innocent populace of a nation, the earthquake a natural disaster in a region known for major earthquakes. Since a typical response by a nation under attack is to retaliate or increase defense capability exponentially and in a natural disaster a nation will first provide medical and rescue services then begin recovery efforts, there is a drastic difference in responses. If the personal your agenda of the author is anti-war then any action of a military will be taken as extreme, where the actions of the same military in rescue operations in Gujarat would purposely not  be mentioned nor eluded too.  The final main premise is the use of automotive accidents. This final premise again is a completely different situation, if 3,000 people died in a single freeway collision; the American people would surely react in a similar manner as the response to 9-11. However, each car accident is a normal part of daily life and it is limited to a small area, and not a worldwide media phenomenon. On the same token if the author has ever driven in another country such as Mexico, where there are not laws similar to the United States then the author cannot compare the drastic changes made regarding vehicle safety. I would go so far to even say that I have more disruption in my life daily due to vehicular laws then I suffered in post-9-11 changes. Although the topic sentence prepares us for the justification of the reaction to 9-11, the author does not actually give us one, the conclusion (in bold) ends with an opinion not based on the premises, in that it is harder to identify with an earthquake victim in Asia than with a 9-11 victim. In California I have suffered many earthquakes, but never had a plane launched at me, so again the conclusion is not based on the premises, but goes beyond the information given. There is no psychological or sociological data given to support the conclusion in the premise. Overall the premises are hard to prove in relation to the author’s intention, the facts themselves are solid enough but comparing apples and oranges to describe a watermelon is never the best approach.