Final answer:
To analyze the statement 'War is terrorism', one must establish a logical structure with clear premises and a conclusion. However, without supporting context, the statement may suffer from questionable premises, irrelevance, circular reasoning, or lack of adequate support, making it a potentially weak argument.
Step-by-step explanation:
When analyzing an argument, one should first identify the conclusion which is what the arguer wants you to believe, then determine the premises, and the reasons offered in support of the conclusion. In the statement 'War is terrorism', we could structure a logical argument with a major premise (a general principle), a minor premise (a specific case), and a conclusion that derives from the interaction of the two. However, such a statement, presented without further context or backing, lacks clear premises and can be challenged on several grounds.
An example of a possible structured numbered argument might be:
- All acts of unjustified violence against civilians for political purposes are terrorism.
- War involves acts of unjustified violence against civilians for political purposes.
- Therefore, war is terrorism.
This argument can be critiqued for several reasons. The premises may be false or questionable, such as the assertion that all war involves unjustified violence, or they may be considered irrelevant if the definition of terrorism does not align with the acts of war in question. Moreover, alternative arguments exist suggesting that war and terrorism are distinct concepts with different motivations and methods.
Applying formal techniques of logic, we must evaluate whether the premises adequately support the conclusion. In this case, we might find that the premises are inadequate to support the conclusion or involve circular reasoning if the definition of terrorism is simply presumed to include war.