Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Sid: The sign says "Keep off the grass" Micki: I know but [#permalink]
29 Jun 2005, 04:44
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Sid: The sign says "Keep off the grass"
Micki: I know but just one person walking across the grass doesnt hurt it.
Sid: Your statement is false. If everyone believed as you do, everyone would walk across the grass, and the grass would die.
Sid's argument is questionable in that it
A) attempts to use a statement about the consequences of actions to disprove a statement about the actions themselves.
B) treats a statement about the consequences of an action as though it were instead about the consequences of everyone believing the statement
C) contradicts itself by treating a statement that the arguer does not believe as though it were a statement believed by everyone
D) discounts the fact that there may be circumstances under which hurting the grass is justified
E) attempts to undermine a statement by calling into question the character of the person making the statement.
Folaa, E is completely wrong, because, Sid is not making a statement that questions Micki's character.
Here is how I approached the CR
When Micki said that the grass won't get die when one person walks on it.. Sid responds by saying that if everyone thinks on those lines.. the grass will die. Only choice B, comes close to nailing the flaw in the argument.
It is abviously bet A and B. In sum here is the flaw in Sid's argument.
Micki says : grass will not be hurt by one person (action). (this statement is true). However, Sid completely ignores the statement (altho he says that the Micki's statement is false), he doesn't attempt to disprove that grass will not be hurt by one person. Instead he says that if everyone thinks the same way, the grass will be destroyed (consequences of the action). Therefore, B is correct. Sid doesn't prove Micki's statement false, but confuses Micki's statement by talking abt what happens if everyone beleives in Micki's statement.
Sid is not trying to use Micki's statement (consequences of actions) to disaprove statement abt actions themselves (which statement r we talkinb abt here ? ) . A is wrong.