{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Wk 6 DQ2 - because an argument and evidence have to be...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Discussion Question #2 CRT/205 Week 6 Assignment Imagine your child is trying to prove that she did not steal chocolate chip cookies from the cookie jar, so she makes this argument: “There are no chocolate stains on my hands, so I couldn’t have stolen the cookies.” Post your response to the following: Does this example require deductive or inductive logic? What are the premises? Are the premises stated or unstated? What is the argument’s conclusion? In your opinion, is this a convincing argument? Why or why not? Answer This example requires inductive logic. The premises are the facts that the cookies are stolen and the little girl is the only one that could have done it. The premises are unstated because you have to read between the lines to know that the little girl was the only one that could have stolen the cookies. The reason this requires inductive logic is
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: because an argument and evidence have to be created. Are her teeth covered with chocolate? Is there a cookie crumb trail? Is the sink wet where she could have already washed the chocolate off her hands? If these details were already present, it would have required deductive logic. The process of elimination would have produced the guilty culprit. The fact that her hands were not full of chocolate is not a convincing argument. They could have easily been washed or wiped off. The conclusion here is that the little girl did indeed eat the cookies. A little girl would not have the ability to remember that when you chocolate chip cookies, your hands get messy. The only reason she brought it up was because she did eat the cookies and her hands were full of chocolate....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}