The actual argument is that the cat tipped the trash over (and then ate from it) and that it was intentional. The evidence put forth does not actually indicate that, it indicates that the cat likely ate from the trash, but we have no reason to actually believe the cat A) did it intentionally vs accidentally and that B) the cat did it vs the wind or a clumsy person knocking it over. Based on what we have the cat is as likely to be a lucky scavenger as it is a mischievous trash-can-tipper.
Meanwhile the tiger example is a clear and blatant example of at least one mammal that is indeed a bad pet. The argument is that not all mammals are good pets, therefore even one mammal not being a good pet means the argument is valid.
1
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
The actual argument is that the cat tipped the trash over (and then ate from it) and that it was intentional. The evidence put forth does not actually indicate that, it indicates that the cat likely ate from the trash, but we have no reason to actually believe the cat A) did it intentionally vs accidentally and that B) the cat did it vs the wind or a clumsy person knocking it over. Based on what we have the cat is as likely to be a lucky scavenger as it is a mischievous trash-can-tipper.
Meanwhile the tiger example is a clear and blatant example of at least one mammal that is indeed a bad pet. The argument is that not all mammals are good pets, therefore even one mammal not being a good pet means the argument is valid.