Skip to main content

Solutions

Solution Argument 1:​

  • Premises: "Most politicians are corrupt." "Hans is a politician."
  • Conclusion: "Hans is probably corrupt."
  • Hidden assumptions: Corruption is evenly distributed among politicians; there are no special factors that distinguish Hans from other politicians.
  • Type of argument: Inductive (statistical argument)
  • Strength: Medium – the conclusion follows with some probability, but not with certainty.
  • Possible improvements: Include more specific information about Hans; define the term "corrupt" more precisely.

Solution Argument 2:​

  • Premises: "Either we lower taxes, or the economy will collapse." "We cannot afford for the economy to collapse."
  • Conclusion: "We must lower taxes."
  • Hidden assumptions: There are only these two options; tax cuts would actually prevent economic collapse.
  • Type of argument: Deductive (disjunctive syllogism)
  • Strength: Weak – the first premise presents a false dichotomy.
  • Possible improvements: Consider additional options; provide empirical evidence for the relationship between tax policy and economic performance.

Solution Argument 3:​

  • Premises: "For the last three years, it has always rained on the first weekend in July."
  • Conclusion: "It will also rain this year on the first weekend in July."
  • Hidden assumptions: Past weather patterns continue into the future; three years is a sufficient sample.
  • Type of argument: Inductive (generalization from examples)
  • Strength: Weak – the sample is too small, and weather patterns are complex and variable.
  • Possible improvements: Include longer-term weather data; consider meteorological factors that influence weather.

Solution Argument 4:​

  • Premises: "Studies have shown that people who meditate regularly experience less stress." "Maria wants to reduce her stress."
  • Conclusion: "Maria should meditate regularly."
  • Hidden assumptions: What works for most people will also work for Maria; meditation is the best or only method of stress reduction for Maria.
  • Type of argument: Practical argument (means-end argumentation)
  • Strength: Medium – the conclusion is plausible but not compelling.
  • Possible improvements: Consider other methods of stress reduction; include Maria's specific situation and preferences.

Solution Argument 5:​

  • Premises: "If the sun shines, the snow will melt." "The snow is melting."
  • Conclusion: "The sun is shining."
  • Hidden assumptions: Sunshine is the only cause of melting snow.
  • Type of argument: Deductive (attempts to be Modus Ponens but commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent)
  • Strength: Weak – logically invalid, as there can be other causes for melting snow (e.g., warm temperatures without direct sunshine, rain, artificial heat sources).
  • Possible improvements: Reformulate into an abductive argument: "The snow is melting. One possible explanation is that the sun is shining. If no other factors are present, the sun is probably shining."