Argument In Fall 2010 the Transportation Security Administration stepped up its security efforts in U S airports by incorporating random full body searches as part of its counter terrorism efforts These full body searches were a response to the refusal of

The author's argument about abandoning TSA activities toward using full-body scanners to decrease the possibility of presence of terrorists in U. S. airports, would be convincing, as it might counted as an excessive revealing of people's privacy, yet, the author has not offered a cogent argument, owing to the fact that his argument is rife with some lacuna and assumptions, and as the consequence, it might not be a compelling notion.

The first assumption is, that he has talked about a policy which was being held about 4 years ago, and he mentioned that because it has been held in Fall 2010, and some people abjure this method, TSA must abandon his activity to scan people. But the assumption is that in that time the possibility of presence of terrorists in airplanes was not as much as what it is now. It would be so important to scan people, before going to airplane, since there is a high possibility of hijacking. Furthermore, people complained about such policy maybe, because they were not aware of the probable dangers, but now they are more conscientious. So, the author has not mentioned people's response through such policy in these days, and because people gainsaid this policy in that time, it would not be a wise decision to abandon it now. There is a possibility that now, they see it a s way to be much more safe.

What is more, he has mentioned that incorporating random full-body scan searches were as response to the refusal of some people to accept it. But he has not mentioned how many people were unsatisfied with such work. There might be just a few complains from people or a lot of complains from a few people, which in both views, it might not be indulging. Mentioned doubt, should be more cast on, by the arguer. Moreover, the author has denied a useful facet of this work, and he believes that people's privacy might be threatened by this; however, he has forgotten that scanning people would be a useful way for they own, and the person who scan people will not tell the others about this person. So this work would not be unreasonable as he said.

By and large, such idea might be thought as invasion of people's privacy, but the author was not able to offer a cogent and well analyzed argument, and as the result, his argument was not convincing.