Submitted by whatever101 on 07/12/2009 11:23 AM Flag This Paper
Join Now
Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11*
ï¶ The first argument that this author presented was the comparison between the earth quake in India and the attack on the world trade center (9-11) stating that more were affected by the devastation of 9-11 then the death toll of the earth quake in India. These are two totally different devastations and will inspire different effects on people. The quake in India was unpreventable it was nature, and although a tremendous amount of people died and the world did take notice, it was over shadowed by the attacks on 9-11, this wasn’t an act of nature this was terrorism at its best. To compare these two, even being both are horrendous is not a fair comparison. The author did correctly describe how the death toll in India being 20,000 and the media coverage and the reaction of the United States people not being met with the same reaction as 9-11.
ï¶ The second argument is the fact the author was comparing the deaths involved in auto accidents compared to the deaths that occurred in the acts of 9-11, again these to devastating acts cannot be compared to each other, deaths coming from auto accidents are just that accidents, the deaths occurred on 9-11 were pre-meditated, leaving these two acts incomparable.
• Both of these arguments are true in fact but are not comparable due to natural disaster, accidents and premeditated harm making the arguments weak because of the outlines compared in the conclusions.
• The premises are all true and as individuals can be proven.