This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: In my examples the premises sufficiently support the conclusions. The reasons for this are because in the conclusions there are facts that are given. In the first example it uses the 15,000 homicides every year in comparison to the malice of the perpetrators in the 9/11 deaths. In the second example the conclusion stating that people are in danger from others being behind the wheel. Are the arguments either deductively valid or inductively strong, or are they invalid or weak? In think that in both of my arguments they are deductively valid because both the premise and conclusions are true. I think that both of these examples are both strong because they state facts in the arguments. Are the premises true or plausibly true, or are they difficult to prove? The premises in both examples are true because they are both stating facts about the 9/11 attacks and about there feelings as if we are the terrorist targets due to those attacks....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 08/23/2010 for the course COMMUNICAT com 240 taught by Professor Junh during the Spring '10 term at University of Phoenix.
- Spring '10