Register to read the introduction…
| The principal issue presented by this source is that the United States is not justified in invading Iraq. | 2 | Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. | There were no examples of bias presented by the author. Following the eight principle arguments stated by author Stephen Zunes, a rebuttal is given.
…show more content…
| Zunes makes the argument that a US invasion of Iraq is not justified because the US can not prove that the Iraqi government has an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, supports terrorism or has the desire to attack the US. | 8 | Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument. | The premise “there is no credible evidence that the Iraqi government supports terrorism, has developed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or intends to harm U.S. interests through military actions.” The conclusion is “A U.S. invasion of Iraq is not justifies” | 9 | Is the author’s argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this. | The author makes a valid, sound and strong argument. The conclusion is supported by the premise. If it is believed that the premise is true, there is no way the conclusion would be false. | 10 | Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this. | Yes. The author gives many moral reasons why he believes an invasion on Iraq would be wrong. …show more content…
If none exist, explain how you determined this. | Bill Clinton used a personal attack ad hominem when he said “ Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment.” He also used scare tactic when he said “And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use that arsenal.” and in his argument “We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information, and ideas.”
| Zunes makes the argument that a US invasion of Iraq is not justified because the US can not prove that the Iraqi government has an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, supports terrorism or has the desire to attack the US. | 8 | Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument. | The premise “there is no credible evidence that the Iraqi government supports terrorism, has developed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or intends to harm U.S. interests through military actions.” The conclusion is “A U.S. invasion of Iraq is not justifies” | 9 | Is the author’s argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this. | The author makes a valid, sound and strong argument. The conclusion is supported by the premise. If it is believed that the premise is true, there is no way the conclusion would be false. | 10 | Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this. | Yes. The author gives many moral reasons why he believes an invasion on Iraq would be wrong. …show more content…
If none exist, explain how you determined this. | Bill Clinton used a personal attack ad hominem when he said “ Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment.” He also used scare tactic when he said “And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use that arsenal.” and in his argument “We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information, and ideas.”