Start wearing your bicycle helmet! You would never consider riding in a car without a
seatbelt, and riding a bicycle without a helmet is like riding in a car without a seatbelt. Both
put your life a risk. Moreover, both are illega
What will be an ideal response?
ANS:This
passage contains an argument. The issue is whether you should wear a helmet
while riding a bicycle. The implied conclusion is that you should wear a helmet while riding a
bicycle. The first premise is that you would never consider riding in a car without a seatbelt.
The second premise is that riding a bicycle without a helmet is like riding in a car without a
seatbelt.
This passage contains a subargument. The intermediate conclusion is that riding a
bicycle without a helmet is like riding in a car without a seatbelt. The first premise is that both
riding a bicycle without a helmet and riding in a car without a seatbelt put your life at risk.
The second premise is that riding a bicycle without a helmet and riding in a car without a
seatbelt are illegal.
This passage is an inductive analogical argument. The argument is strong. It presents
two similarities supporting the analogy, and the analogy is relevant to the feature.
?Start wearing your bicycle helmet! ?You would never consider riding in a car without a
seatbelt, and ? riding a bicycle without a helmet is like riding in a car without a seatbelt.
?Both put your life a risk. Moreover, ?both are illegal.
? You should wear a helmet while riding a bicycle.
? ?
??
? + ?
?
?
You might also like to view...
Experiences having a "what-it-is-likeness" aspect to them are called qualia
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Marx said that he was not a Marxist
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Kant believed that the categories are innate in the human mind
Indicate whether the statement is true or false.
There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments
a. true b. false