Subtle assumption?

arabprodigy30

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://7sage.com/lesson/animal-navigation-weaken-question/

(above example)

emli1000

There's a discussion on this. Let me find it and add you to it.

blah170blah

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.

harrismegan

Usually I just ask myself "What else could be explaining this"

arabprodigy30

Thank you guys!