Title: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: the prosecution claims that my client, Jack Hill, caused immense ...
Post by: maggotti36569 on Feb 7, 2018
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: the prosecution claims that my client, Jack Hill, caused
immense physical distress to the plaintiff, Jill Fletcher. But, surely, this is not possible. For
my client can barely walk, as he suffers from multiple sclerosis. What will be an ideal response?
Title: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: the prosecution claims that my client, Jack Hill, caused immense ...
Post by: gatt3130 on Feb 7, 2018
ANS:This
passage contains an argument. The issue is whether Jack Hill caused immense
physical distress to Jill Fletcher. The conclusion is that Jack Hill did not cause immense
physical distress to Jill Fletcher. The premise is that Jack Hill can barely walk.
This passage contains a subargument. The intermediate conclusion is that Jack Hill can
barely walk. The premise is that Jack Hill suffers from multiple sclerosis.
This argument is an inductive causal argument.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: the prosecution claims that my client, Jack Hill, caused
immense physical distress to the plaintiff, Jill Fletcher. But, surely, this is not possible. For
my client can barely walk, as he suffers from multiple sclerosis.
|