Cogent argument

Cogent argument Order Description NO reference and bibliography need. This is my philosophy final exam please treat it seriously, thank you very much. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU Watch this video and R.A.G (relevance,acceptability, and Ground) on it. hint: Horses are not human, they can't think like human. This video is not rationally acceptable. PHILOSOPHY 102 - Prof. Brad Leutywler Building 7 MODEL ANSWER The first thing we have to deal with is the fact that there is no stated conclusion. That makes this an enthymeme. So we are going to take our best Jedi guess at what they are trying to convince us of. Truth be told, nearly any meaningful conclusion that we could come up with, such as, “Larry Silverstein was responsible for the destruction of building 7.” Requires us to fill in so many blanks that we cannot even come close to coming up with a cogent argument. Knowing this from the start, it seems as though they are trying to convince us some people were aware, well in advance of 9/11/01, that there was going to be a terrorist attack on the world trade center, or at least on WTC 7. That, of course, implies that there was some sort of conspiracy (i.e. Silverstein or Giuliani etc. were in on it) or that at a minimum someone knew it was coming and failed to do anything to prevent it. NONE of this is stated overtly. It appears to be a deliberate enthymeme designed to get dumb people to reach bad conclusions based upon evidence that is either bad or that does not connect together in any logical manner to reach any cogent conclusion. If you already buy into conspiracy theories about 9/11, you might put your mind in park, agree with the shady info (the way that people who do not believe in climate change buy everything in The Great Global Warming Swindle) and then repeat it. Enough about the conclusion or lack thereof. I’m going to run with, “Some people knew, in advance, that building 7 was coming down.” 1) FEMA was in NYC the day before (9/10) for bio terror drill. RELEVANCE- If there were a bunch of bogeymen in high places planning or allowing for the attack, then moving FEMA into the city the night before to care for the victims is positively relevant in that it MIGHT be an indicator of their foreknowledge. ACCEPTABILITY - No. There is a cogent argument made at http:// www.devvy.com/foia_20021128.html that includes links to the associated documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), that Tom Kenney actually mispoke, and that the order to go to NYC was issued and he arrived on the 11th (along with the team he was a part of). 2) Larry Silverstein had obtained a 99 year lease on WTC in the Spring of 2001. RELEVANCE - BARELY relevant. Whether Silverstein held the lease or not does not show whether or not he had any knowledge of an impending attack. This premise connects to the insurance premise (#3) but it really only goes to show that he was the guy with a huge financial stake in the property. It also shows that he had a lot to lose. When the entire complex was destroyed he lost all of his tenants and their income, yet he was still responsible for the lease... In fact, the first $700 Million he got from the insurance (See #3) had to be used to pay the rent on the lease. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/ regional/item_AOAnGWwzd8lRjdDeV1NmOK ;jsessionid=27E9BF53827CB78C1C813A39F9ED2D72 ACCEPTABILITY - Mostly, as Silverstein admitted it with his personal testimony and he sued the insurance company (#4) which is something only the guy with the lease can do. He actually signed the lease six weeks prior to 9/11 http://www.forbes.com/sites/ morganbrennan/2011/09/09/the-man-whos-rebuilding-ground-zero/ . The NY Post article indicates that Silverstein OWNED building 7 and leased the rest from the NY Port Authority. 3) Silverstein Added Terrorism coverage. RELEVANCE - This is trying to make itself more important sounding than it actually was. Yes, it could go to show that he took out a huge insurance policy and then tried to cash in on it by orchestrating the destruction of the WTC. But research shows that because the WTC had already been attacked by jihadist terrorists in 1993, he would have been an idiot NOT to get it. See the bibliography at the end of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing Even though it is Wiki, the Bib ROCKS. ACCEPTABILITY - 100% easily verifiable elsewhere, but shady. The New York Times covered this story ad nauseum. Silverstein was required to have terrorism coverage and was required to have “rebuild” insurance, both of which were terms in his lease (because the lease required him to actually rebuild if the WTC was destroyed, and Larry did not have billions of dollars to do it). That makes sense, given the 1993 terror attack by Islamic extremists to blow tower one over into tower two. http://www.law.com/ jsp/article.jsp?id=1082923373947&slreturn=20130410010258 Starkman, Dean (2004-04-30). "Jury's Decision Leaves Rebuilding of World Trade Center in Turmoil". Wall Street Journal. p. A1. 4) Silverstein sued his insurance company for double coverage and got seven billion dollars. RELEVANCE - Same as #3. ACCEPTABILITY - Nope. A jury said that he should get over $7 billion, but the insurance companies appealed the decision and Silverstein (with the help of the Mayor and the state of NY) negotiated a final settlement of about $4.55 billion. Silverstein owed $700 million in back-rent on the complex, PLUS he had to keep paying rent during the re-build over the next 10 years, plus he had to pay to rebuild all of the buildings, and the main tower of the new complex cost $3.1 billion http://www.forbes.com/sites/morganbrennan/2011/09/09/ the-man-whos-rebuilding-ground-zero/ . He made no money in this deal. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/ item_AOAnGWwzd8lRjdDeV1NmOK;jsessionid=27E9BF53827CB78C1C813A39F9ED2D72 5) The Mayor of NYC (Rudolph Giuliani) had a super-bunker in building 7. RELEVANCE - Yes. Positively. If Rudy did know that 7 was going to be destroyed, then he would have stayed out. That makes sense. What the maker of the video is trying to do with it, however, is affirm the consequent by showing that because he stayed out, he must have known. That is messed up. If you know your house is going to blow up, of course you stay out. But if you are out to dinner when your house blows up, that does not mean that that you knew ahead of time about the explosion. ACCEPTABILITY - True that. http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/giuliani-911-and-the-emergency-command-center-continued/ 6) Mayor “sought shelter elsewhere” on 9/11 - Relevance - Yes, but same as #5. ACCEPTABILITY - No. Contradictory premises. There is evidence that he was trapped in the command center and then there is evidence that he ESCAPED from it after being PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT :)