Argument in standard form

From the Berkshire Eagle
Thursday September 22, 2011
Now that the 10th anniversary of the horror of 9/11 has passed, without thank God, a major terror strike within the borders of the U.S., I am both relieved and worried. The worry comes from the fact that our Berkshire Eagle, the New York Times and most media almost never identify the terrorists as being Muslim.
In reviewing the actual 9/11 press coverage, no media re-reported the thousands of Muslims dancing in the streets in many Arab cities, celebrating with joy the success of the suicide bombers against the "Great Satan."
Terror will never end if its root causes are not opposed. To be politically correct, the media and our government are extra cautious not to upset moderate Muslims living among us. However, I rarely hear a moderate Muslim voice loudly castigating Islamic terrorists. Until Muslims self-reform themselves from the inside, the terror threat will continue to grow. The killing of bin Laden and the weakening of al-Qaida are important achievements in the war against terror. Nevertheless, the threat continues.
Our country, and Western civilization, must face up to and fight against the underlying cause of terror in these perilous times.
MARTIN SILVER
Lenox

I think there is an attempt at an argument here, but what it is exactly is fairly hazy. Two propositions  jump out at me:
P1: Radical Muslims are the source of terror.
P2: Killing Bin Laden and weakening Al-Qaida have eliminated terrorism.
The final sentence suggests the conclusion of fighting the underlying cause of terror, but that cause is never fully articulated. One possible formulation of the conclusion is:
C1: Western civilization must continue to fight radical Muslims.
But the an alternate conclusion is also availible by adding a third proposition from the letter:
P3: Moderate Muslims are not attempting to reform radical Muslims.
C2: Western civilization must fight all Muslims to eliminate terrorism.

Which formulation do you think the author intended? P1 + P2 = C1 or P1 + P2 + P3 = C2?

Argument for Tricia Farley-Bouvier

From the Saturday September 17, 2011Berkshire Eagle:

I am writing in support of Tricia Farley-Bouvier for state representative from the 3rd Berkshire District. She is strongly committed to serving the needs of our community, particularly those concerning families and children. Her expertise and experience in education have been evident in her various public roles, which have included city councilor at large. She will be an effective advocate for the Berkshires on Beacon Hill. Tricia has my vote on Sept. 20.
ROBERT TABAKIN

P1: Tricia Farley-Bouvier is committed to serving the needs of the Berkshires.
P2: Tricia has experience and expertise.
P3: Tricia will be an effective advocate for the Berkshires.
C: You should support Tricia Farley-Bouvier for state representative for the 3rd Berkshire District.

Introduction

My name is David Tynan, I'm a transfer student starting my junior year at MCLA. Before I came here I was studying Computer Science at a rather large engineering school in the midwest. While I found it quite interesting I realized that it wasn't what I wanted to do with my life. Now I'm a philosophy major. I find the two fields are not as divorced as most people assume as they are both primarily about analyzing and understanding problems, although generally with different questions and goals. I have a fairly strong background in logic but it is heavily focused on the formal: algorithm design and Boolean algebra. I'm looking forward to expanding my understanding to general reasoning as well.