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

The argument is **D. Inductive weak**.<br /><br />Here's why:<br /><br />* **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).<br /><br />* **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.<br /><br />The other options are incorrect:<br /><br />* **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.<br />* **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.<br />* **Strong inductive arguments** have premises that make the conclusion highly probable. This argument's premise offers very weak support for the conclusion.<br />