Gwen plays basketball and soccer and has performed adequately in the two sports. She thinks she should learn a new sport. She expects to be adequate at it, given her performance in the other sports. Would her argument be stronger, weaker, or neither if she decided that she would undertake special training to excel at the new sport?
What will be an ideal response?
Weaker. This seems counterintuitive, but the argument for this scenario would change. The argument would be that special training is required for Gwen to excel at sports. However, the additional details would weaken the given argument due to the difference in the premise-analogue and the conclusion-analogue.
You might also like to view...
Philosophers have a long history of openness to the ideas of individuals who are not male, white, and of European descent
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
If Fatima explains the history of Islam emphasizing 'Ali and allegiance to a succession of seven Imams, she is most likely a
a. Madrasa. b. Sunni. c. Shi'a. d. Caliph.
An argument is extended if and only if
A) it has more than one premise. B) it has at least one conclusion. C) it has more than one conclusion.
As a lexical definition, Emma Goldman's definition "Patriotism: A superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods" may be criticized as:
A) Being negative. B) Being too narrow. C) Being affective. D) Being figurative. E) Being too broad.