Subscription pricing
Anyone else having a difficult time figuring out the subtle assumption in weakening questions? Usually I can sort of figure out how to weaken the arguments. But have difficult time figuring out what this subtle assumption is.
Exactly how are we suppose to find out what it is?
http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/animal-navigation-weaken-question/
(above example)
1
4 comments
Thank you guys!
Usually I just ask myself "What else could be explaining this"
STEP 1: ID the conclusion
navigation is animal's ability to move from unfamiliar to familiar territory
STEP 2: Evidence (why do the naturalists believe this?)
Because a polar bear returned home after being placed 500 km away
STEP 3: Place argument core
Polar bear returning home from far distance -- ability to move from unfamiliar to familiar
STEP 4: Evaluate the evidence
The evidence is relevant because the polar bear is traveling long distances, an aspect of navigation. But, do we know if this point (whatever X is 500 km away) is unfamiliar territory? Because, if not, how do we know this evidence as an animal's ability to move from unfamiliar to familiar?
(B) gets to this point exactly. If this animal always go to this point thats far away, then it's not unfamiliar, which means we have no idea if the polar bear can actually navigate (again, moving from unfamiliar to familiar).
In going through this question and other assumption questions, it's crucial to understand the argument. That means having a clear understanding of the conclusion, the evidence the stimulus provides to convince you of the conclusion, and the relationship between the two.
There's a discussion on this. Let me find it and add you to it.