Consider the following argument:
Observation: Here in Nashville, the sun has risen every morning. Conclusion: The sun is going to rise in Nashville tomorrow.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The scenario presents a simple inductive argument: observing that the sun has risen every morning in Nashville leads to the conclusion that it will rise tomorrow there. Now let's evaluate each option in turn.
Option 1: 'The argument is strong because there are a large number of observations.' This claim would require many observations to increase reliability. In the given setup, we are told about an unspecified (and potentially small) number of observations, not a large sample. Without a clear, large dataset, we cannot confidently label the argument as strong.
Option 2: 'The argument is weak because the observation does not consider other cities.' While considering other cities could affect the scope or generalizability, the core issue for strength here is the sample size and representativeness for Nashville specifically, not cross-city generalization. This option is partially relevant but not as direct a critique of the strength about Nashville’s future sunrise.
Option 3: 'The argument is strong because the premise includes scientific evidence.' No scientific evidence is provided in the premise; it’s simply an observation. Labeling it as strong on the basis of scientific support is incorrect, since the premise does not include any scientific data.
Option 4: 'The argument is weak because there is only one specific case.' This directly targets the key weakness: the conclusion about tomorrow relies on a single locality’s past pattern. Inductive reasoning from one case to a future event in the same case is inherently less reliable than a broader or replicated sample. Therefore, this option correctly identifies the limitation of the argument.
In summary, among the options, the most accurate assessment is that the argument is weak because there is only one specific case, making Option 4 the best choice. The other options either misstate the nature of the evidence, rely on unsupported claims about scientific backing, or overemphasize sample size without addressing the central inductive limitation.

Consider the following argument: Observation: Here in Nashville, the sun has risen every morning. Conclusion: The sun is going to rise in Nashville tomorrow.

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

London discusses Aristotle's view about the "productive sciences" or what we might call "applied sciences". According to Aristotle, what type of reasoning does the empiric use?

Which type of argument does the following example reflect? "Shakila learns that all her Chinese friends from Penang are able to speak Hokkien. Shakila comes to the conclusion that a majority of Chinese Penangites speak Hokkien."

"Only twelve people have ever walked on the moon. So the next person you meet did not walk on the moon." The above argument is:

Inductive reasoning is a logical process that begins with a theoretical prediction which is subsequently tested by gathering observations.

Real-world observations lead to new ideas in which type of reasoning?

Which of the following are all inductive arguments?

Inductive arguments are subjective in nature.

(27) T/F: Justus shows that inductive inferences can include mathematical calculations, and models in conjunction with deductive reasoning.

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler