{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

5 a yes premises are relevant to the conclusion if

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
5. a) Yes. Premises are relevant to the conclusion if they make it more likely to be true. In this case, both premises seem relevant to the conclusion (“I’m still not convinced we should move in together”). Premises are sufficient for the conclusion if, given the nature of the conclusion, they provide enough evidence. In this case, they do not seem to be. The conclusion is quite a strong one, and it therefore requires strong evidence. While Cornelius is still offering more evidence than was given in his first argument, it’s unlikely that Dorothea will find it satisfactory. Therefore, this argument is a moderately strong non-deductive argument. See pp. 62–64.
Background image of page 13

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 6. a) Yes. An argument is contextually relevant if it fits within the context established by previous conservation or dialectic. This argument directly responds to the second argument, which was given by Dorothea, so it is contextually relevant. See pp. 65–71. Passage 7 1. b) No. 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, it’s not clear whether the tenant would accept it or not. We really don’t know what the tenant is like. The best we can do is consider whether a universal audience would accept it. Since messiness isn’t something that can be directly observed, it seems that there would have to be some kind of argument to support it, so the premise is not acceptable. See pp. 52–56. 2. a) Yes. 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, it’s not clear whether the tenant would accept it or not. We really don’t know what the tenant is like. The best we can do is consider whether a universal audience would accept it. Since a yard being overgrown can be directly observed, a reasonable person would accept it. (Unless the landlord is just lying, of course, but we have no reason to think so.) Therefore, the premise is acceptable. See pp. 52– 56. 3. a) Yes. 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, the landlord does bear the burden of proof. The tenant is unlikely to just accept that the yard is a disgrace without some evidence for it. However, the landlord does provide evidence, in the form of the other two premises. They provide at least some support for the claim that the yard is a disgrace. So, unless the tenant has some reason to object to them, this premise is acceptable. See pp. 52– 56. 4. b) No. In order to be deductively valid, it must be impossible for the conclusion to be false and the premises true. For this argument, while the premises provide some reasons for the conclusion (“You need to clean it up”), it is still possible for this conclusion to not be true. For example, if it is the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the yard, then the conclusion
Background 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 ]}

Page13 / 16

5 a Yes Premises are relevant to the conclusion if they...

This preview shows document pages 13 - 15. Sign up to view the full document.

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