Question at position 11 Sarah has two shih tzu dogs ; Angelo gave her a shih tzu puppy on her birthday. So, Sarah has three shih tzu dogs. This is an example of an inductively strong argument. TrueFalse单项选择题
A
True
B
False

Question

Question at position 11 Sarah has two shih tzu dogs ; Angelo gave her a shih tzu puppy on her birthday. So, Sarah has three shih tzu dogs. This is an example of an inductively strong argument. TrueFalse单项选择题

A

True

B

False

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Inductive strength evaluates how probable a conclusion is given its premises; deductive validity means the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. Here the premises and concepts are simple arithmetic and ordinary language about possession.

Relevant knowledge points and concepts:
- Inductive argument: premises make the conclusion likely but not guaranteed.
- Deductive argument: premises entail the conclusion; if premises are true, conclusion must be true.
- Basic arithmetic of counts: if one has 2 items and receives 1 more, the total is 3.

Step-by-step reasoning:
1. Premise 1: Sarah has two shih tzu dogs. This asserts Sarah’s current count = 2.
2. Premise 2: Angelo gave her a shih tzu puppy on her birthday. This asserts she received one additional shih tzu.
3. Combining these premises: starting count 2 + received 1 = new count 3. Calculation: 2 + 1 = 3.
4. Therefore, conclusion: Sarah has three shih tzu dogs.

Why this is not an inductively strong argument:
- The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises under their ordinary interpretation (no qualifiers about loss, death, or transfer). Because the premises guarantee the conclusion, the argument is deductively valid rather than merely inductively strong. An inductively strong argument would only render the conclusion probable (e.g., “Most owners keep a pet they receive”), but here simple addition gives certainty.

Why the other option is incorrect:
- Choosing "True" would claim the argument is inductively strong. That mislabels the type of support: the support is stronger than inductive probability—it is deductive entailment (given the premises as stated).