I am starting to believe that assumptions can only really weaken an argument. So when we are thinking about assumptions, the next question to ask is "how reasonable is this assumption?" and if that assumption is unreasonable, it really weakens the argument.

So "tigers are mammals" hurts the argument by not being stated. But it doesn't ruin the argument because it's a relatively straight forward fact. However, the second assumption about aggressiveness and injuries is much more unreasonable to make, therefor significantly weakens the argument by leaving it out.

@colestartek985 This is how I am looking at it. If assumptions are simple and more likely to be verifiable (like is a tiger a mammal), then it is not dangerous to the argument. But it also doesn't lend a lot of support.

If an assumption is more subjective, and less likely to be "true", then it is and unreasonable assumption, and dangerous to the support of the argument. The more of these, the weaker the argument it.

I have a question about this. Let's take the Fat Cat example. Let's take the assumption "Fat Cat is strong enough to knock over the trash bin". Now, if Fat Cat is strong enough to knock over the bin, then sure, that lends some credibility to the argument. But only some.

If Fat Cat is not strong enough, it strongly weakens the argument. So what does this make the assumption? Does it mean the argument is overall weakened because the assumption was not included and answered?

@Cee🦋 I think because if you just said learned and took over, that would be incomplete. Someone would ask "learn what"? and "took over what"? A predicate isn't just always a verb, it can be a verb and a noun "took over the world".

For those confused here is a another way of explaining it. For the 2nd step in the process, we are NOT comparing MOST with sorghum, because the claim never states how close MOST cultivars are with sorghum.

Therefore, we cannot center the comparative around Sorghum, because we don't know where MOST fits.

We only know that sorghum (first item) is closer related to some cultivars (quality compared) than MOST cultivars (second item)

1. Sorghum vs MOST

2. Centered around relation to SOME cultivars

3. Sorghum is more related

@tiba_shlash I think something else that may help out is asking WHO/WHAT the sentence is about. We could remove opposition leaders and still have a sentence that makes sense.

We cannot remove attempts and have it still make as much sense. When we come across "backfire", we would ask "what will backfire?". It makes slightly less sense.

@MonicaAponte I don't think you can do this because then you would have to apply it to the "potential to cause injury" assumption. And take that as true.

@JamesHague yes, and I almost look at the argument with a critical lens. "How can I attack this argument"? So when I read the initial argument, I immediately asked myself, "Okay, but what if someone wants a pet BECAUSE they are dangerous? Wouldn't that make it suitable?"

Isn't there an error in the video? The written statement states that Members of the DVC can access the fast pass. But the video point #1 states that they have access to the Genie+ system. Are those two different things? You can mess up an argument when you don't know the difference between a system and a specific app