the argument talks about a debate about an issue of accommodating projected traffic. then the stim says "Today, the choice is clear: either we do X or Y", which is a premise. the flaw answer seems to target this premise.
since premises supposed to be accepted as true and not considered flawed, any solid reason that explains this q?
66.lr1.1 flaw attacking premise in this question Forum
-
appind
- Posts: 2266
- Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:07 am
-
mma_litigator
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 2:53 am
Re: 66.lr1.1 flaw attacking premise in this question
Yeah, when a premise presents the opinion of somebody (in this case, the opinion of the Mayor), you don't accept their claim/opinion as factually true, you just accept as true that the person/source has that opinion. It's important to properly identify and differentiate objective evidence vs. subjective/claim/opinion/belief evidence.appind wrote:the argument talks about a debate about an issue of accommodating projected traffic. then the stim says "Today, the choice is clear: either we do X or Y", which is a premise. the flaw answer seems to target this premise.
since premises supposed to be accepted as true and not considered flawed, any solid reason that explains this q?
Notice the full phrasing of that part of the stim including "...our choice is clear...". That is the dip$hit politician offering his/her claim/opinion that there are only two options, which is a pretty common fallacy often used by dumba$$ politicians trying to persuade gullible people of stuff the politician wants the public to believe is true. This flas is described in logic land as false choice/false dilemma/false dichotomy. Think back to major recent political events going back to last year with the Iran nukes deal when Obamma, Kerry and others, in order to try to gain support for it, kept saying to the public nonsense like (paraphrasing, I don't remember their exact words from each time they pushed this nonsense): 'It's either this deal or they get nukes' and Netanyahu and others kept responding with stuff like 'those aren't the only options, how about a better deal!'.
Make sense?
-
appind
- Posts: 2266
- Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:07 am
Re: 66.lr1.1 flaw attacking premise in this question
the statement in op though is still a premise in mayor's argument. the mayor uses that premise to justify his claim that the council should adopt his plan, which is the conclusion of his argument. it seems like it's still an issue because the premise of mayor's argument is being considered flawed instead of his any conclusions.
