Answer:
This is an example of masked-man fallacy.
Explanation:
The masked-man is a fallacy in which two people or objects are mistakenly considered to be either identical or completely different. The most common example used to explain it is the following:
I know who Joshua is.
I don't know who the masked man is.
Therefore, Joshua is not the masked man.
In the example above, Joshua and the masked man are considered different, unrelated. <u>In the situation we are analyzing here, the opposite happens. To reach the conclusion that Tamiko stole Maya's shoes, we are making the huge mistake of not considering any other possibility. Tamiko could very well have an identical-looking pair of shoes; Maya could have lent Tamiko her shoes and forgotten about it, and so on. Therefore, assuming that the shoes are the same, that they belong to Maya and have been stolen, is a result of wrong reasoning and an example of masked-man fallacy.</u>
Answer:
Superego.
Explanation:
Superego is seen to be one of the key components of Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory of personality. This according to research is said to have been practically been acquired from our parents directly or indirectly. Superego is explained to work in a way that it is seen to suppresses the urge of its identity and makes its urge to behave in a moral way instead of being realistic about it.
It sometimes include rules and standards for good behaviors seen to involve those that are been authorized by our parents or authorities that has value of are held of high respect by us. These rules leads us to feelings of pride, value, and accomplishments when we find ourselves obeying or following them religiously and breaking them make us full of guilt.
Answer:
A) The first is a prediction about a recommendation the main argument opposes; the second is a conclusion drawn in order to support the main conclusion.
Explanation:
From the argument above by the two senators, it could be seen that the two Senators are argueing in favour and argainst the Tax. Senator Baker, was of the believe that his opponent, Senator Rothmore calling for increase in taxes to fund programs helps the long-term unemployed.
His argument was based soley on the unemployed without factoring in the small businesses that would be killed off as a result of the tax increment. The fall of small businesses would definitely affect the prediction he made about unemployed getting work. This is because, those unemployed can only work by the opportunities created by the small businesses.
Senator Baker only made the second conclusion inorder to support his argument on the need to lower taxes which would drive job creations thereby being a win-win situation for both the government and the citizens.
;) i love you, you're a great person. I hope you have an amazing day
