Evaluate the following analogical argument:The Patriots easily made it into last year's Super Bowl. They'll have almost the same personnel next year, so I'm putting my money on the Patriots to be back next year.
What will be an ideal response?
The Patriots' having almost the same personnel next year helps the analogy some, but too many other relevant factors have to be considered before this argument would be a safe one-the other teams may not have the same personnel they had last year, for instance. Notice that it's easy to confuse what a person is betting on in cases like this. It's one thing for the Patriots to be the team most likely to play in the championship game; it's another for it to be more likely that they'll play than that they won't.
You might also like to view...
In terms of the criteria for personhood developed in this chapter, dolphins, on balance, did pretty well
A. True B. False
Syllogism 2A Given the following syllogism: Some uncontaminated salads are healthy meals, for some appetizing foods are contaminated salads, and all unhealthy meals are unappetizing foods. For Syllogism 2A, the major premise is:
A) No unhealthy meals are appetizing foods. B) Some appetizing foods are not contaminated salads. C) Some appetizing foods are contaminated salads. D) All appetizing foods are healthy meals. E) Some healthy meals are not contaminated salads.
The theory that nothing comes between our perception of the world and the world itself.
A. perceptionism B. phenomenalism C. direct realism D. representative realism
"Many people living in Los Angeles think that crime is worse now than four years ago. Jane lives in Los Angeles. Thus, she thinks crime is worse now than four years ago" is
A) valid B) invalid