Read the argument below and determine the underlying reasoning that was used to come to the conclusion presented:
a) If you get at least 8 hours of sleep a night, you show up to the office 10 minutes early for work.
b) When you get less than 8 hours of sleep a night, you show up 10 minutes late for work.
c) I know for a fact that I was early to work Monday through Friday, so I must have slept at least 8 hours every night.
Which other argument has the same structure or pattern of argument as used above?
This is a deductive argument, because the truth in the first premises which states: if you get at least 8 hours of sleep a night, you show up to the office 10 minutes early for work. Has validate the conclusion that state: I know for a fact that I was early to work Monday through Friday, so I must have slept at least 8 hours every night.
The underlying reason why the conclusion is valid is because, the conclusion affirms the first premises (P1).
The conclusion can only be valid in this argument if it affirms either P1 or P2.
ANOTHER ARGUMENT WITH THE SAME PATERN IS:
P1: If it rains the soil will be wet.
P2: If it does not rain the soil will not the wet.
Conclusion: it rained, therefore the soil is wet.
answer: the first 2nd and last one
nope, but i have cleaned my brush in my cup of not as potentially harmful but nevertheless, very upsetting for scottish/british folks. especially if you've used the last teabag for it
there could be something in that . . i am indeed an old scottish man!
there's a bit of bolshie-ness with it too though. i won't let go of the old ways . . tea and whisky . . whether the young whippersnappers like it or not!