Case Study #2
1. Abortion is murder, because murder is intentionally killing an innocent person. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
Explicit premises: a. Abortion is Murder.
b. Murder is intentionally killing an innocent person
c. Abortion is wrong.
Implicit premises: a. Abortion is a crime because it is murder
b. Murder is wrong therefore abortion is wrong.
2. The rate of drowning increases with the rate of ice cream eating. Therefore, ice cream eating leads to drowning.
Explicit premises: Rate of drowning increase with eating ice cream
Eating ice leads to drowning
Implicit premises: a. There is a causal connection between rate ice cream and drowning
b. Drowning increases at the same rate as eating ice cream
c. Therefore eating ice causes drowning
1. No cats are pleasant creatures. This is a mouse. Since it is not a cat, it is a pleasant ...view middle of the document...
Not all cats are feral therefore Tabitha may or may not be feral.
1. Using the Counterexample Method, show that the argument’s conclusion does not follow:
“If I score an A on the test, then I will pass the class.” “I passed the class!” “Therefore I scored an A on the test.”
The argument is invalid because there are many other conclusions that can follow from the premise “I passed the class.” She could’ve scored a B or C and still passed the class. If A, then B does not equate to A=B. The conclusion does not follow from the provided premise.
1. Identify both the explicit and implicit premises of the argument presented. Assess whether the premises of the argument presented should be accepted or rejected.
Killing people is always wrong. Euthanasia is an example of one person killing another. Therefore, it is clear that euthanasia is wrong, and should continue to be illegal.
Explicit premises: Killing is always wrong. Euthanasia is an example of one person killing another
Implicit premises: a. Killing is wrong
b. If killing is illegal and euthanasia is just another form of killing which is wrong, it should be illegal.
c. Any wrong act is illegal
Assessment of premises: The first premise and statement “killing is wrong” allow for subjectivity to leap into the statement and it makes the conclusion flawed. Killing is wrong however it is not always wrong because of circumstance. Self-defense is an instance where killing is not always wrong and can be used to disprove and invalidate the author’s argument and implicit premise that anything wrong is illegal. Euthanasia as the author mentioned is another example which disproves her first statement that killing is always wrong because the goal of euthanasia is to relieve one from pain. Most patients sign wavers that give their primary givers the right to relieve them of excruciating medical pain when and if their conditions gets unbearably worse, this is ordered liberty and in this case killing is warranted and not wrong.