<12{7[1(01)]}> Detective: The robbery at the mall was carried out by a mall employee acting alone roughly one hour after the mall closed last Saturday night. The only employees present at the mall at the time of the robbery were security guards Evans and Clark. Since the mall’s surveillance system was disabled by the thief just before the robbery, the thief must be Evans.
The argument above would be valid if
clark is incapable of disabling the mall's surveillance system
the following statement is true: "The only person who could have disabled the surveillance system is Evans."
we can establish that the only person who could have disabled the surveillance system is Evans. To determine if the argument is valid, we need to consider the information provided.
Based on the statement, the robbery was carried out by a mall employee acting alone after the mall closed. The only employees present at the mall at the time were security guards Evans and Clark. Furthermore, the surveillance system was disabled by the thief just before the robbery occurred.
To evaluate the validity of the argument, we should follow these steps:
1. Identify the conclusion: The conclusion stated in the argument is that the thief must be Evans.
2. Identify the premises: The premises are the reasons or evidence provided to support the conclusion. In this case, the premises are:
- The robbery was carried out by a mall employee acting alone after closing time.
- The only employees present at the mall were Evans and Clark.
- The surveillance system was disabled by the thief just before the robbery.
3. Analyze the premises: The premises establish that the robbery was committed by a mall employee and that the only employees present were Evans and Clark. It is also stated that the thief disabled the surveillance system.
4. Determine if the premises logically support the conclusion: In this case, the argument relies on the assumption that since the surveillance system was disabled by the thief, the thief must be Evans. However, this is not necessarily a valid conclusion. While it is possible that Evans, as a security guard, could have disabled the surveillance system, we cannot conclusively state that he was the only one who could have done so. Other factors or individuals could have been involved.
Therefore, based on the information provided, the argument is not valid. It is drawing a conclusion based on a limited assumption without considering alternative possibilities.
It seems to me that critical thinking needs to include ...
... what YOUR assignment is.
... what YOUR thoughts are on this unexplained, unfinished piece of writing.
... what question(s) YOU have about the assignment.