Inductive VS Deductive Arguments

Richard Clarke’s article holds the premise that the death of Osama Bin Laden was the US's way of ending the false belief of the world that Osama was indestructible. Therefore, his death was supposed to give the Americans a sense of justice for the terrorist crimes committed against them. The article, however, ends with the conclusion that Osama’s death did nothing to stop terrorism or dismantle terrorist activity. Instead, terrorism goes on in the world, and Al-Qaeda’s missions go on unaffected throughout the world. In terms of the paper’s inference, the claims in the paper are warranted because the evidence presented shows that the goals set by Osama and his organization continue to be achieved even in his death. Nations continue to have all-Muslim states, and recruitment of new members and terrorist activity continues in the world (Clarke, 2011). In my opinion, this is the article’s strongest argument, as it is based on factual information. Clarke uses deductive reasoning to come to the conclusion that Osama’s death did not end terrorism.

Joe Nocera’s article explores the premise, whether Osama’s death resulted in a safer world. The article wraps up with the observation that the world is, in fact, more tense, especially with the measures by Muslim countries to counter the US government’s efforts towards Muslim nations. Just like Clarke’s article, the inference in this article has been defended as the author presents sufficient evidence to validate the claims. The observation that the world is not safer with Osama’s death is the strongest argument in this paper, as it is backed by the evidence presented. For instance, he gives the example of the Turkish government, where they overtly opposed the way NATO dealt with the problem in Libya. An increase in the occurrence of terrorist activity and the number of recruits also supports this argument. This is the article’s strongest argument. This conclusion was reached through inductive reasoning, where the author first dealt with the four questions, before coming to the conclusion that the world was not safer, but even vulnerable to terrorist activity.

References

Clarke, R. A. (2011, May 3). Bin Laden’s dead. Al Qaeda’s not [Op-Ed]. The New York Times, p. A.23. (ProQuest Document ID 864311946).

http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/864311946/abstract?source=fedsrch&accountid=34899

Nocera, J. (2011, May 3). 4 questions he leaves behind [Op-Ed]. The New York Times, p. A.23. (ProQuest Document ID 864311864). http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/864311864/abstract?source=fedsrch&accountid=34899

This is the assignment portion. PLEASE RESPOND TO THE STATEMENT AND QUESTION BELOW

Thank you for your thoughts on the issues surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden.  I appreciate your detailing and you did a good job of looking at the initial claims and the emotional foundations of these arguments.  Good detailing on both the weakest and the strongest parts of the argument.

Remember, this is a two-part discussion and the second part will focus on your counter argument to the position you took in this discussion. In module two, after making your counter argument, you will, then, make a decision based on both the argument and the counterargument as to which position you would take. Would you write me back and let me know something about induction and deduction. How have you used both of these argument forms? Remember, with induction the conclusion is a probability based on the premises and the conclusion could always be false. With deduction, if the premises are true and the form is valid, the conclusion cannot be false. Please write back to me and let me know your thoughts. I would appreciate it very much.