Imagine your child is trying to prove that she did not steal chocolate chip cookies from the cookie jar, so she makes this argument: ―There are no chocolate stains on my hands, so I couldn’t have stolen the cookies.‖
Post your response to the following: Does this example require deductive or inductive logic? What are the premises? Are the premises stated or unstated? What is the argument’s conclusion? In your opinion, is this a convincing argument? Why or why not?
We'll be glad to comment on your answers.
This example requires deductive logic.
The premises in this argument are:
1. There are no chocolate stains on my hands.
2. If there were chocolate stains on my hands, then I would have stolen the cookies.
The first premise is stated explicitly, while the second premise is implied.
The argument's conclusion is:
Therefore, I could not have stolen the cookies.
In my opinion, this argument is not very convincing. While it is true that the absence of chocolate stains on the child's hands is evidence against her stealing the cookies, it is not conclusive proof. There could be other ways she could have consumed the cookies without leaving chocolate stains on her hands, such as using a utensil or washing her hands afterwards. Therefore, the argument lacks strong reasoning and does not eliminate other possibilities.