{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Since the premises are not relevant they cannot be

Info iconThis preview shows pages 15–16. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
it being spelled out explicitly, we have to assume that there isn’t one. Since the premises are not relevant, they cannot be sufficient. Therefore, this argument is a weak non-deductive argument. See pp. 62–64. 6. b) No. An argument is contextually relevant if it fits within the context established by previous conservation or dialectic. This argument is not contextually relevant. The tenant does provide a rejoinder to the landlord’s conclusion by simply denying it, but the issues raised by the tenant look like attempts to distract from the issue at hand—namely, the state of the yard. This suggests that the tenant is trying to introduce a red herring, which makes this argument contextually irrelevant. See pp. 65–71. Passage 9 1. c) It’s impossible to tell. A premise is acceptable if the arguer does not have to bear the burden of proof, or, if the arguer does, then they do so successfully. In this case, we can’t tell if the tenant would accept this or not. It depends on how familiar the tenant is with the rental agreement, so we have to fall back on the standards of the universal audience. But these don’t give us a clear answer, either, so this premise is not acceptable. See pp. 52–56. 2. c) It’s impossible to tell. A premise is acceptable if the arguer does not have to bear the burden of proof, or, if the arguer does, then they do so successfully. In this case, we can’t tell if the tenant would accept this or not. It depends on how familiar the tenant is with the rental
Background image of page 15

Info iconThis 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 agreement, so we have to fall back on the standards of the universal audience. But these don’t give us a clear answer, either, so this premise is not acceptable. See pp. 52–56. 3. c) It’s impossible to tell. A premise is acceptable if the arguer does not have to bear the burden of proof, or, if the arguer does, then they do so successfully. In this case, we can’t tell if the tenant would accept this or not. It depends on how familiar the tenant is with the rental agreement, so we have to fall back on the standards of the universal audience. But these don’t give us a clear answer, either, so this premise is not acceptable. See pp. 52–56. 4. a) Yes. In order to be deductively valid, it must be impossible for the conclusion to be false and the premises true. For this argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be. If the rental agreement includes maintenance, and maintenance includes the yard, then it follows that the tenant must clean the yard. There is no other possibility. Therefore, this is a deductively valid argument. See pp. 60–61. 5. a) Yes. An argument is contextually relevant if it fits within the context established by previous conservation or dialectic. This argument responds directly to the points raised by the tenant in the second argument and reintroduces the point originally raised by the landlord in the first argument. Therefore, it is very contextually relevant. See pp. 65–71.
Background image of page 16
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page15 / 16

Since the premises are not relevant they cannot be...

This preview shows document pages 15 - 16. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online