ShobhitK282 Wrote:Hi,
I'm a little confused on this problem. For assumptions, we are supposed to bridge the gap between premise and conclusion. Here Lucy is giving a counter premise but I don't clearly understand if there's a conclusion there which I can look to validate?
Please let me know if I'm missing very basic here.
If thinking in such abstract terms were essential, I personally wouldn't be able to solve any of these problems.
All you really need to know is this:
"- An "assumption" is something that is necessary to the argument, but is not stated explicitly.
"- If an assumption is false, the argument is completely destroyed.
This makes a nice test ("the negation test") for whether something is an assumption. Just make it false; if the argument is destroyed, then it's an assumption.
(This is nothing particularly special or recondite; it's just the definition of "necessary". If something is necessary, then taking it away = failure.)
If C is false, then the medicine's effect on children IS different from its effect on adults. If that's the case, then Lucy's argument is total nonsense.