Week 6 DQ 1 and 2 - be worthy. DQ 2: I believe that this...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
DQ1 In the digital story there is a salesman trying to sell a vacuum cleaner to a man and shows how delightful it works by vacuuming up a pile of dirt from the rug. The man thought that this is a terrific product and he had to talk it over with his wife and she said had stated to him that there was not anything wrong with the vacuum they have, and there is no need to get a new one. The argument would be that the salesman brought is thought because he just provides an option to upgrade to a better vacuum. The man's wife argument is valid because she provides the facts that there is no need for a new vacuum and that the vacuum they have is working just fine. I believe while creating an argument it is most important to be valid because sometimes they may not need a particular item but anyone could provide reasons an upgrade or a replacement may
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: be worthy. DQ 2: I believe that this example requires inductive logic because even though the child says that she did not steal the cookies because her hands are not dirty, she very well could of. It is possible that she stole the cookies using a napkin to grab them. I believe the premises in this example is that there is that the child claims there is no chocolate on hers hands for an argument that she did not steal the cookies, so that means a premises is stated. The conclusion is that the child did not steal the cookies because she states her hands are not stained. I do not believe this is a good argument because if she took the cookies, there is numerous amount of ways she could have covered it up. The child could have had someone else get them for her so that she would not get into trouble....
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online