{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

4 b no in order to be deductively valid it must be

Info icon This preview shows pages 12–14. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
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, it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion (“I don’t think we should move in together”) to be false. After all, there may be better reasons to move in together than the reasons given against it. See pp. 60–61. 5. a) Yes. Premises are relevant to the conclusion if they make it more likely to be true. In this case, the premises do seem to make the conclusion more likely. They are the sort of thing that would support Cornelius’s statement that “I don’t think 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 sufficient. The conclusion is a fairly strong statement, and requires at least a consideration of opposing views in order to be established. Therefore, this argument is a moderately strong non-deductive argument. See pp. 62–64. 6. c) It’s impossible to tell. An argument is contextually relevant if it fits within the context established by previous conservation or dialectic. This argument is the first, so there is no context for it to fit within. See pp. 65–71. Passage 5 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, Dorothea bears the burden of proof, as Cornelius is unlikely to just accept that he spends barely any time at his place. Given the first argument, it seems like something that he is likely to dispute. However, Dorothea does not do this successfully, as she offers no argument for this claim, so the premise is unacceptable. 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 seems that Dorothea does not bear the burden of proof. Basic mathematics suggests that splitting the bills is going to be cheaper than paying two sets. So assuming, as we should, that Cornelius isn’t irrational, it seems that this premise is acceptable. See pp. 52–56. 3. 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, Dorothea bears the burden of proof, as Cornelius is unlikely to just accept that he spends barely any time at his place. Given the first argument, it seems like something that he is likely to dispute. However,
Image of page 12

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon