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.