Moore And Parker Summary

701 Words3 Pages
Moore and Parker (2007, pps. 456-457) presents the reader with the article Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11 which is an excellent of use of rhetoric in hiding premises and conclusions. The authors of the article provide a lot of arguments that use fallacies based on outrage and innuendo, which do not support many of the arguments that they make throughout. However, the authors do want to “influence our attitudes or beliefs,” (Moore and Parker, 2007, p. 117) which provides the basis for some argument exploration. Two primary arguments that are seen within the article are; 1) strategies currently used to fight terrorism are ineffective and; 2) the U.S. has over-reacted to terrorist attacks. Martonosi and Arnold (2006) discuss how there is no conclusive evidence on the…show more content…
has overreacted to terrorists attacks. The first premise is that the U.S. has more people who die from murder, and the second is that the U.S. has more people who die from automobile accidents. The inducted conclusion is that the U.S. does not care about deaths in the U.S. “It seems clear, at least, that sheer numbers cannot explain response to 9/11” (Moore and Parker, 2007, p. 457) is the statement that leads to this particular conclusion. However, this particular use of premises is weak, with the author assuming a stronger relationship to the conclusion than actually exists. It should also be noted that the author has created a substantial false dilemma around this situation, noting that if money is not spent on something, than it must be perceived as unimportant. Although the premises do not necessarily support the conclusion, they are plausibly true. The U.S. Department of Justice (2009) and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (2008) both indicate that yes, the number of deaths related to murders and fatal car crashes are higher than the number reported dead or missing from
Open Document