If you have an argument that is weak and uncogent, the conclusion may be either true or false.
An argument is a collection of two or more statements, one of which is supported by another. A conclusion is a proposition supported and a premise is a proposition supporting the conclusion. The purpose of an argument is to build a conclusion based on the premises or the evidence provided by the premises.
An inductive argument is one that claims that the conclusion follows with some degree of probability. In other words, premises make the conclusion more likely to be true, and premises true make the conclusion less likely to be false. Inductive arguments are powerful when given that the premises are true, the conclusion is unlikely to be false.
An inductive argument is weak when the conclusion is likely false given the premises are true. A strong argument is cogent if the premise is correct. A strong argument is uncogent if at least one of its premises is wrong.
Know more about uncogent argument here
brainly.com/question/13445406
#SPJ4
Answer:
480 million years ago
The Appalachians first formed roughly 480 million years ago during the Ordovician Period, and once reached elevations similar to those of the Alps and the Rocky Mountains before they were eroded.
Explanation:
so b is your answer
Answer:
Yes he may prevail
Explanation:
He wants to exercise his civic duty and he has every right to file a suit because he has been taxes indirectly to the city.
Firstly, The farmer does not pay any tax directly to the city because a portion of his farm property is turned over by the county to the city to support the city police department, which indirectly, he is paying tax because this support to the city is categorized indirectly as his tax.
Secondly, His farm property has been vandalized several times over the months and the police didn't do anything about it to improve his situation which calls for attention to why nothing has been done about it despite his support to the city police department.
With the two above paragraphs, he has a point and his also lives in one of the rural communities and the city ordinance provides that only residents of the city may vote, but the city ordinance is always the city ordinance, the law might and might not favor him, he could get payment for the damages on his properties, but it would be quite difficult for him to prevail over the suit because he doesn't live in the city
Answer: D. Certain rights can never be taken away
