Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Logical Reasoning exercise. Did I do it right?

NanaimomooseNanaimomoose Member
in Logical Reasoning 60 karma

Hi.
I needed to improve logical reasoning skills so I took a simple argument and tried if I can come up with imaginary correct answers for different question types on my own. What do you guys think? Do you think I did any of them incorrectly?

Argument: You can't get a tattoo. Your aunt Barbara got a tattoo, and she is in jail.

Flaw: Assumes that I will have the same consequence as aunt Barbara if i get a tattoo like her.
Weaken: Some people who has a tattoo did not end up in jail
Strengthen: Most people who got a tattoo ended up in jail
Sufficient Assumption: A new legislation states that "anyone who gets a tattoo ends up in jail."
Necessary Assumption: There are at least some people besides aunt Barbara who got a tattoo and now in jail.
Parallel flaw: Last night, I saw a video of a black cat that was taught to use a toilet, our kitty is also black, so she could be taught to use a toilet.

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • cqas190517cqas190517 Alum Member 🍌
    535 karma

    I would say for NA: Aunt Barbara was not convicted of a crime that carries minimum jail time as a sentence.

    Strengthen would be something like: All people who get tattoos commit robbery and get caught, and robbery is a crime punishable by a minimum of six months in jail.

    Fun exercise! I’m going to do this for some of my own questions now.

  • NanaimomooseNanaimomoose Member
    60 karma

    Hi! Thanks for the comment. :) I was a bit shaky on NA so it is a welcome help. I have a question for strengthening tho, do you think "Most people who got a tattoo ended up in jail" in fact does strengthen it? Since it does increase the likelihood that she "might" end up in jail after getting a tattoo.

  • AudaciousRedAudaciousRed Alum Member
    2689 karma

    A NA is an "unstated premise" that supports the conclusion. It's something stupid basic that we all just take for granted, but is absolutely necessary for that argument to exist at all.

    I would think a NA might be something like "Aunt Barbara did not have her tattoo removed before she went to jail", or even "Aunt Barbara has a visible tattoo." If Aunt Barbara didn't have a tattoo (that other people were aware of) when she went to jail, then none of that argument would ever make any sense. It requires, in the most basic sense,that Aunt Barbara had a tattoo when she went to jail. It's not said, but it has to be a fact of this argument for it to function.

    My other thought was, "You should never do anything that gets you put in jail." Again, this seems like an unspoken thing that we must assume if we are to believe the argument. Jail is bad. No one should do anything to go to jail, right? We all know this, but it's not actually stated.

Sign In or Register to comment.