{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

CRT 205 week 6 DQ2 Alternate Answer

CRT 205 week 6 DQ2 Alternate Answer - because there is no...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CRT 205 Week 6 DQ 2 Alternate Answer Review Ch. 7 (pp. 219–226) of your Critical Thinking text. 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.” 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? The example requires inductive logic. The reason I believe this is because while the argument is strong, its not valid. A deductive argument requires the premises and the conclusion to be true. This argument is questionable
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 there is no real evidence saying yes she ate a cookie or proving her innocence. I believe the premise to be "There are no chocolate stains on my hands." I also believe this argument to be stated because it gives the reader a reason to believe the conclusion. The conclusion is "so I couldn’t have stolen the cookies.” In my personal opinions this is not a convincing argument because there are many other factors to why the child might not have had chocolate stains, maybe she washed her hands or maybe she used a napkin. Its my personal experience, if a goodie is missing and there is a child present, most often the child is the one who ate it....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online