In 2004 Z is having a conversation with his friend X and X’s wife Y. Y is a U.S. citizen and a ‘Bushy’ (a supporter of George W. Bush). She is planning on voting for Bush in the upcoming presidential election. Z and X (both are Canadian citizens, not Americans; one liberal and one conservative) are both arguing that Bush is not the best choice for President (primarily on the basis that Bush is an ‘unreflective’ man and that such a man should not occupy the most powerful executive office in the world). After listening to the supporting evidence offered by Z and X, Y responds to their argument as follows: “You’re not Americans, [therefore] your opinions don’t count.”

Question

In 2004 Z is having a conversation with his friend X and X’s wife Y. Y is a U.S. citizen and a ‘Bushy’ (a supporter of George W. Bush). She is planning on voting for Bush in the upcoming presidential election. Z and X (both are Canadian citizens, not Americans; one liberal and one conservative) are both arguing that Bush is not the best choice for President (primarily on the basis that Bush is an ‘unreflective’ man and that such a man should not occupy the most powerful executive office in the world). After listening to the supporting evidence offered by Z and X, Y responds to their argument as follows: “You’re not Americans, [therefore] your opinions don’t count.”

There is an ambiguity in Y’s argument regarding what Y means by ‘opinions not counting.’ Two interpretations are plausible and the ambiguity can be resolved by creating two standardizations of the argument with different hidden premises:
1. You’re not Americans
HP2.
3. Therefore, your opinions don’t count
In each version 1 and 3 will be the same. You must supply the hidden second premise in each interpretation that generates the two distinct interpretations of the argument. Y’s argument is interesting in that each plausible interpretation produces a distinct problem for the argument. You must identify the problem with each interpretation of the argument.

I found the hidden premise
- only americans have value.

and the problem with interpretation in the hidden premsie is
it's a weak argument ( unacceptable by observation).

Answer 1

Only American OPINIONS have value in an American election. She isn't saying her husband and friend are not persons of value.

But I don't know that it is unacceptable by observation. It is a weak argument, but what are you observing to substantiate that is weak?

Answer 2

it could be unacceptable problems in language

Answer 3

I would think language is plausible, but I have not read your text materials. I have no idea what approach your text is taking, whose tenets are being followed.

Answer 4

In this case, the hidden premise you have identified is "only Americans have value." This hidden premise implies that Y is claiming that the opinions of non-Americans are inherently less valuable or important.

The problem with this hidden premise and interpretation of Y's argument is that it is a weak argument based on a biased assumption or generalization. It is an unacceptable argument by observation because it suggests that the nationality of an individual determines the value or validity of their opinion. This form of reasoning is flawed as it discounts the possibility that non-Americans can possess knowledge, information, or perspectives that are relevant and meaningful in discussing political matters. It is important to consider the content and reasons behind an argument rather than dismissing them solely based on the nationality of the individuals involved.