{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

3 d none of the above is a reason for which p3 is

Info icon This preview shows pages 13–15. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
3. d) None of the above is a reason for which P3 is unacceptable . A claim can be unacceptable not because of any of the above problems, but because it fails to satisfy one of the conditions of acceptability. In this case, P3 P1 is not acceptable by definition or by being self-evident; it is not a report of observations or eyewitness testimony; it is not common knowledge; it is not supported by a reasonable sub-argument; and it is not based on the authority of the arguer or an expert. See pp. 205–207. 4. d) Due to a reasonable sub-argument . To be acceptable due to a reasonable sub-argument, a claim must have an argument supporting it. See pp. 200–204. 5. d) Due to a reasonable sub-argument . To be acceptable due to a reasonable sub-argument, a claim must have an argument supporting it. See pp. 200–204. 6. a) Yes. A claim is relevant to another if it makes it more or less likely. See pp. 208–211. 7. b) No. Whether a set of claims is sufficient for a conclusion depends on the strength of the conclusion, whether the conclusion is reached hastily, and whether the arguer has presented a balanced case and discharged all obligations. In this case, the conclusion is much stronger than the evidence for it. See pp. 214–216. 8. a) Yes. A claim is relevant to another if it makes it more or less likely. See pp. 208–211. 9. a) Yes. Whether a set of claims is sufficient for a conclusion depends on the strength of the conclusion, whether the conclusion is reached hastily, and whether the arguer has presented a balanced case and discharged all obligations. See pp. 214–216. 10. a) Yes. A claim is relevant to another if it makes it more or less likely. See pp. 208–211. 11. b) No. Whether a set of claims is sufficient for a conclusion depends on the strength of the conclusion, whether the conclusion is reached hastily, and whether the arguer has presented a balanced case and discharged all obligations. The problem in this case is the strength of the conclusion, which uses the word “always.” This requires a very high level of evidence. See pp. 214–216.
Image of page 13

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Fifth Edition © Oxford University Press Canada, 2012 Exercise 5 1. b) As a report of an observation or eyewitness testimony. To be acceptable as a report of an observation or eyewitness testimony, a claim must state something that the arguer or some other specified person observed. See pp. 200–204. 2. c) By common knowledge or assent. To be acceptable as common knowledge or assent, a claim must be something that most reasonable people, or most people in the specific audience, would accept. See pp. 200–204. 3. d) Due to a reasonable sub-argument. To be acceptable due to a reasonable sub-argument, a claim must have an argument supporting it. See pp. 200–204. 4. d) Due to a reasonable sub-argument. To be acceptable due to a reasonable sub-argument, a claim must have an argument supporting it. See pp. 200–204. 5. a) Yes. A claim is relevant to another if it makes it more or less likely. See pp. 208–211.
Image of page 14
Image of page 15
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}