Determine whether the following claim is best classified as semantically ambiguous (and whether this contains grouping ambiguities), syntactically ambiguous, or free from ambiguity: From an accident report: In my attempts to kill a fly I drove into a telephone pole.
What will be an ideal response?
Syntactically ambiguous.
You might also like to view...
Syllogism 3I Given the following syllogism: Taffy must not be a dog because Taffy climbs trees and dogs never climb trees. For Syllogism 3I, the minor premise is:
A) All animals that climb trees are animals identical to Taffy. B) No animals identical to taffy are animals that do not climb trees. C) No dogs are animals that climb trees. D) No animals identical to Taffy are dogs. E) All animals identical to Taffy are animals that climb trees.
Evaluate the following claim, paying particular attention to problems of clarity. Note that claims may also present problems of knowability, though we don't address knowability per se in this chapter.Every account that Delwood has worked on has come back with computational errors in it.
What will be an ideal response?
Which of the following is most likely to occur during the pre-editing phase of dominance structuring?
(a) reducing the number of options by the use of elimination by aspect and satisficing (b) considering every reasonable option in an equal and thorough way (c) comparing our promising alternative to the other options in terms of the set of decision-critical attributes (d) adjusting the relative importance of the criteria until one option emerges as the obvious first choice (e) finding one alternative that is more attractive than the others on at least one critically important attribute
Primoratz rejects the abolitionist argument that capital punishment is wrong
because it violates the right to life, as such a right would also require a rejection of the right of self-defense
Indicate whether the statement is true or false.