This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: The premise being that anyone who could have stolen the cookies would have chocolate stains on their hands. The conclusion is that the child did not steal the cookies. In my opinion this is not a convincing argument. I believe this is why the premise was not initially stated because it weakens the argument. The premise is false. There are too many variables. Someone who had stolen the cookies could have washed their hands, the cookies could have been very cold and have melted in order to leave stains, or they were so good the thief licked the melted chocolate off their hands, etc. Even though the premise is false, the argument is valid. In other words, the conclusion is accurate based on the premise given....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 01/09/2011 for the course CRT CRT taught by Professor Trunk during the Spring '10 term at AUP.
- Spring '10