1. Conclusion: Arianna Huffington says something that is false when she says that people who drive SUVs are supporters of terrorism.
2. Premises:
Arianna Huffington says that people who drive SUVs are supporters of terrorism.
If people who drive SUVs are supporters of terrorism, then so is everyone in America who eats groceries or sits on furniture which are transported to stores on gasoline-powered trucks.
(Assumption 1): It is not the case that everyone in America who eats groceries or sits on furniture which are transported to stores on gasoline-powered trucks is a supporter of terrorism.
So, people who drive SUVs are not supporters of terrorism.
So, Arianna Huffington says something that is false when she says that people who drive SUVs are supporters of terrorism.
3. Assumptions: See #3 above.
4. Premise #2 seems false. There is a difference between people who choose to drive an SUV despite having numerous other comparable choices that are more fuel efficient and someone who buys groceries or furniture that is transported in what is likely the most efficient way.
5. The assumption that it is not the case that everyone in America who eats groceries or sits on furniture which are transported to stores on gasoline-powered trucks is a supporter of terrorism seems true. In fact, it seems so obvious that is probably why the author did not bother to state it.
6. All the terms in this argument were adequately defined.
7. It would be helpful to know the actual fuel efficiency of various cars, vans, trucks, and SUVs. It would be helpful to know if viable alternatives exist to transporting groceries and furniture in inefficient gasoline-powered trucks. It would be helpful to know the relative safety records of a wide range of cars, vans, trucks, and SUVs. It would be helpful to know exactly what public policy decisions Arianna Huffington advocates. It would be helpful to know the other restrictions and laws already in place regarding the fuel-efficiency of vehicles for sale in the United States and whether these laws should be viewed as socialistic.
8. “Nonsense” in the title seems intended to immediately bias us against Huffington's view. Calling her view “one-size-fits-all” and “un-American” at the outset does the same. “Brand” seems intended to make Huffington look like she is carelessly slapping labels on people as if they were sides of beef. “ferociously dissing” seems intended to make Huffington sound like a raving lunatic. “righteous meddlers” is more name-calling. The entire section on socialism is off-topic and seems to be a scare-tactic. “salute some chief” is probably the peak of this tactic, for it is totally unclear how Huffington's position entails that we all must salute anyone.
9. The argument is valid.
10. The argument is unsound because premise 2 is false.