bupbebeo wrote:
What you think if I say the assumption for this argument is
People do not use chemicals that make Black Oak trees shed their leaves every year.
I mean, when people use chemicals Black Oak sheds their leaves due to this chemicals not by its own nature.
I would still say that this is not an assumption to the argument .
An assumption is necessary for the argument to be true , without the assumption the argument will not stand .
If we look at this argument and your so called assumption . If we remove the assumption then simply on the basis of the primes the argument can be proved true right ?
So we can not say that your assumption is the correct one .
An assumption is just like an unstated premise .
Now if we consider the argument as
Trees that shed their foliage are deciduous trees. Therefore, Black Oak trees are deciduous.
Now can the premise alone prove the argument ? No .
Some thing is missing right ? The missing part is the assumption .
Now if we put in your assumption in to the argument .
Premise : Trees that shed their foliage are deciduous trees.
Assumption : people use chemicals Black Oak sheds their leaves due to this chemicals not by its own nature.
Conclusion :Therefore, Black Oak trees are deciduous.
Look at what this assumption has done to the argument , it weakens the conclusion and if this was a weaken question then this would have been the correct assumption .
I hope all this makes sense.
