I have a bucket of A, I pour most of it into a bucket B, I pour the entirety of bucket B into bucket C, then I pour all of bucket C into bucket D. Most of my bucket A is in now in bucket D
For B to be correct it would mean the conclusion is a non sequitur. For instance if the conclusion was about Haynes being unethical just using those premises about the relative amount of products returned that were inspected by Haynes.
Also presup…
I'll give it a shot:
I think a good framing is cost benefits analysis. They give us this downside of the law that it discourages landowners from protecting species on their land because it means development is prohibited, but from that premise they…