Question
10. Tigers are stripped .zebera are also stripped tigers are carnivores it implies zebera are also carnivores.This argument is __ A.Deductive invalid B.inductive strong C.deductive unsound D. Inductive weak
Solution
4.7
(326 Votes)
Zariah
Master ยท Tutor for 5 years
Answer
The argument is **D. Inductive weak**.Here's why:* **Inductive arguments** draw a probable conclusion based on observed patterns. They don't guarantee the conclusion is true, even if the premises are true. This argument is inductive because it tries to establish a general rule (striped animals are carnivores) based on a limited observation (tigers).* **Weak inductive arguments** have premises that provide poor support for the conclusion. In this case, the connection between stripes and being a carnivore is extremely weak. Many striped animals are not carnivores (like zebras). The single example of tigers doesn't provide sufficient evidence to generalize to all striped animals.The other options are incorrect:* **Deductive arguments** start with general principles and draw specific conclusions. If the premises are true in a deductive argument, the conclusion *must* be true. This isn't the case here.* **Unsound deductive arguments** have at least one false premise or an invalid structure. While this argument is flawed, it's not deductive in the first place.* **Strong inductive arguments** have premises that make the conclusion highly probable. This argument's premise offers very weak support for the conclusion.