week6dq2

week6dq2 - The premise being that anyone who could have...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
· Due Date: Day 4 [ Main forum] · Resource: Ch. 7 (pp. 219–226) of Critical Thinking · 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? This example requires deductive logic, because if the premise of this argument were true, then the conclusion would absolutely be true. The premise is unstated.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

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.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online