........ September 11, 2001, at 8:46 A.M., a
hijacked airliner crashed into the north tower
of the World Trade Center ∈New York. At
9:03 A.M. a second plane crashed into the
[5] south tower. The resulting infernos caused
the buildings to collapse, the south tower
after burning for an hour and two minutes, the
north tower twenty-three minutes after
that. The attacks were masterminded by
[10] Osama bin Laden ∈ an attempt to intimidate
the United States and unite Muslims for a
restoration of the caliphate.
9/11, as the happenings of that day are now
called, has set off debates on a vast array of
[15] topics. But I would like to explore a lesser-
known debate triggered by it. Exactly how
many events took place ∈New York on that
morning ........ September?
It could be argued that the answer is one.
[20] The attacks on the two buildings were part of
a single plan conceived by one man ∈ service
of a single agenda. They unfolded ........ a few
minutes and yards of each other, targeting
the parts of a complex with a single name,
[25] design, and owner. And they launched a
single chain of military and political events in
their aftermath.
Or it could be argued that the answer is two.
The towers were distinct collections of glass
[30] and steel separated by an expanse of ,
and they were hit at different times and went
out of existence at different times. The
amateur video that showed the second plane
closing ∈ on the south tower as the north
[35] tower billowed with smoke makes the twoness
unmistakable: while one event was frozen in
the past, the other loomed ∈ the future.
The gravity of 9/11 would seem to make this
discussion frivolous to the point of impudence,
[40] a matter of mere "semantics," as we say, with
its implication of splitting hairs. But the
relation of language to our inner and outer
worlds is a matter of intellectual fascination
and real-world importance.
[45] ______ "importance" is often hard to
quantify, ........ this case I can put an exact
value on it: 3,5 billion dollars. That was the
∑∈a legal dispute for the insurance
payout to Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of
[50] the World Trade Center site. Silverstein’s
insurance policies stipulated a maximum
reimbursement for each destructive "event."
If 9/11 comprised a single event, he stood to
receive 3,5 billion dollars; if two, he stood to
[55] receive 7 billion. In the trials, the attorneys
disputed the applicable meaning of the term
event. The lawyers for the leaseholder defined
it ∈ physical terms (two collapses); those for
the insurance companies defined it ∈ mental
[60] terms (one plot). There is nothing "mere"
about semantics!
Adapted from: PINKER, Steven. The Stuff of Thought. New York: Penguin, 2007. p. 1-2.
Consider the following statements about the text.
I - To take 9/11 as a single event ensues not only a smaller reimbursement from the insurance company, but also the acknowledgement of Osama bin Laden as the mastermind of the terrorist attacks.
II - Larry Silverstein’s attorneys’ attempt to pin 9/11 as two events so as to collect twice as much the insurance reimbursement verges on impudence, since it gives way to frivolous discussions concerning a catastrophe.
III- The text states that there is nothing simple about semantics because the meaning of the words we use to encompass reality are neither fixed nor unchanging, which allows several valid interpretations.
Which ones are correct according to the text?
