The premise for the first argument is that relative to the death toll on 9/11, the panic level showed by American following the events was irrational. The conclusion is that to that extent Americans gave the terrorist exactly what they wanted: to spread fear. 1. The author provides examples of other situations that happened in 2001, an earth quake that killed almost 20,000 people and statistics of how many people die yearly in car crashes, as examples of Americans milder reactions as support to his conclusion. 2. This argument is inductively strong, and the contention is true.
Americans did help the terrorist agenda succeed. 3. The argument is difficult to prove because one cannot compare car accidents and natural disasters to terrorist attacks. The premise for the second argument is that in response to the growing national fear the government created new unnecessary government positions and wasted billions of taxpayers’ dollars. The conclusion is the ineffective way the money was spent had no effect on the war on terror. 1. Although the author offers a lot of opinions he does not provide supporting evidence to support his conclusion.
Just saying how annoying the new antiterrorism procedures are and how much he says we have wasted on them without stating any statistics does not make the claim true. 2. The argument is weak and invalid. The author offers no statistics to backup his claim that the money spent has not stopped any further attacks. 3. This claim is almost impossible to prove. In fact with the recent capture of Bin Laden and other high-level terrorist the money spent on chasing terrorist is proving to be successful.