PT 11 sec-4 Q.20
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 9:31 am
So this was actually a pretty good question for me all in all. I got the question wrong lol,but once I reviewed it it totally made sense. I do have one question however. The reason I got this one wrong was because I spotted a flaw that apparently was not there. I thought there was an error in the fact that the people INDICATED that no ants were there, and the argument went on to conclude that we DO NOT Need a an exterminator
I can easily come up with a scenario where building tenants say they don't need an exterminator to deal with ants, and yet there could be a place that's out of the site of those tenants where the ants are just having a good ol time. My question is, was I wrong to think about this flaw? It's kinda like a claim flaw within a premise.
I can easily come up with a scenario where building tenants say they don't need an exterminator to deal with ants, and yet there could be a place that's out of the site of those tenants where the ants are just having a good ol time. My question is, was I wrong to think about this flaw? It's kinda like a claim flaw within a premise.