Lorenzo believes in global warming

I saw the old man hated what the young man said

5) Young people have no respect for their elders anymore

Premises 1,2 and 3 are telling us that person saw the young man and old man walking and speaking, which can be counted as testimony because people mostly can recognize these simple actions. Nevertheless premise 4 that tells us that the person saw that old man hated what young man said is bad testimony because people can’t judge whether someone hated something just by observing it. So it is interpretation. Therefore the argument fails A condition.

Number 2.

1) There is no evidence that I stole anything from that house

Police found only my fingerprints

3) I am not a thief

4) I take people’s wallets

5) I should be free to go home

In the subargument premises 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive because fingerprints are evidence. The subargument is unacceptable because premises are inconsistent. Since the subargument is not acceptable the main argument does not pass the A condition.

Moreover, in the main argument premises 3 and 4 are mutually exclusive too. Ones who take people’s wallets are thieves. So the main argument is inconsistent too. Therefore it fails A condition.

Number 3.

1) I’ve seen black cats

2) I’ve seen white cats

3) I’ve seen brown cats

4) I’ve seen red cats

5) Cats come in different colors

6) Cats have tails

7) Cats have fur

Cats have claws

9) Cats are very interesting

In the subargument premises 1, 2, 3 and 4 are testimonies because we can trust to the claim that the person saw cats in different colors. Therefore the subargument is acceptable provisionally.

In the main argument premises 5,6,7 and 8 are common knowledge and can be believed because the majority of people know that cats have tails, fur, claws and come in different colors. So the main argument passes A condition.

Number 4.

There are seven days in the week

There are seven planets

3) The world is perfect.

In the subargument premise 1 is a common knowledge, because the majority of people know that there are 7 days in the week. The premise is acceptable, so the subargument passes A condition.

In the main argument premise 2 is easily refutable, because the majority of people know that there are eight, not seven planets. Therefore the main argument does not pass the A condition.

B. Number 1.

1) Dirk is a violent person

Lorenzo used to be friend of Dirk

3) Lorenzo is a violent person

Lorenzo believes in global warming

5) Global warming must be fault

In the subargument premises 1 and 2 are not relevant to the subconclusion 3, because Lorenzo is being counted as a violent person only because he used to be a friend of Dirk who is a violent person. Being friend of someone does not mean having the same characteristics. So this is “guilt by association” fallacy. Therefore this argument does not pass the R condition.

In the main argument premise 3 and 4 are not relevant too, because the thing that Lorenzo is a violent person does not influence on his beliefs about global warming. This is “ad hominem” fallacy, therefore the main argument does not pass the R condition.

Number 2.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14