Subtle assumption?

Comments

• 2 Likes

  emli1000 Alum Member Inactive ⭐

  February 2015 3462 karma

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

  blah170blah Alum Inactive ⭐

  February 2015 edited February 2015 3545 karma

  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.
• 1 Like

  harrismegan Member

  February 2015 2074 karma

  Usually I just ask myself "What else could be explaining this"
• arabprodigy30 Alum Member

  February 2015 243 karma

  Thank you guys!