Suppose you have an argument that is strong with false premises. given this info, what do you know about the cogency of this argument? a) the argument may be cogent or uncogent b) the argument is mostly uncogent c) the argument must be cogent d) the argument must be uncogent e) the argument is both cogent and uncogent suppose you have a strong argument that has a false premises. given this info, what do you know about the conclusion of this argument? a) the conclusion is probably true b) the conclusion must be true c) the conclusion must be false d) the conclusion may be either true or false e) the conclusion is probably false suppose you have a strong argument with a false conclusion. given this info, what do you know about the premises of this argument? a) the premises are probably false b) the premises must all be true c) the premises may be any combo of true and false d) the premises must all be false e) the premises are probably true is it possible to have an argument that is neither strong or cogent? a) yes b) no is it possible to have an inductive argument that is neither cogent nor uncogent? a) yes b) no

D) The argument must be uncogent.

E) The conclusion is probably false.

A) The premises are probably false.

A) Yes

Explanation:

The distinction between false, true, strong, weak, cogent and uncogent arguments is an important one when we are looking to properly analyze an argument that was put forward. A cogent argument is a strong, non-deductive  argument that has true premises. A cogent argument is a non-deductive one, which means that the premises establish probable, but not definite support for the conclusion.

elizabeth loftus conducted a study to observe the reliability of eyewitnesses during the 1970s. their baseline was to define how accurate are the recollections of eyewitnesses.

her studies do not support the use of eyewitness. loftus mentions in her work that we are not required to recall some experiences, meaning that rarely an individual eyewitness testimony is trustworthy. a good example is presented in her work, where all individuals watched a video and were than asked "about how fast were the cars going when they hit/smash? ". the testimonies changed based on the word she used to make the question (hit or smash), proving the fragility.