Question

consider the following example of a fallacy, and complete parts (a) through (c) below (false cause) i became sick just hours after eating at burger hut, so its food must have made me sick. a. identify the premise(s) and conclusion of the argument the premise is i became sick soon after eating at burger hut. the conclusion is burger hut food made me sick. b. briefly describe how the stated fallacy occurs in the argument. a. the argument rejects the possibility of alternative explanations. b. the conclusion is stated before the premise c. the argument doesnt prove that burger hut food was the cause of the sickness. d. there is not enough evidence to support the conclusion.

Explanation:

Part (a)

Step 1: Identify Premise

The premise is the statement that provides the reason or evidence. Here, "I became sick soon after eating at Burger Hut" is the premise as it's the fact presented to support the conclusion.

Step 2: Identify Conclusion

The conclusion is the statement that is being argued for. "Burger Hut food made me sick" is the conclusion as it's the claim derived from the premise.

The fallacy here is a false cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc). Option C is correct because the argument assumes that just because sickness followed eating at Burger Hut, the food was the cause, but it doesn't actually prove that the food was the cause (e.g., other factors like a virus, pre - existing condition could be responsible). Option A is incorrect as the argument doesn't reject alternative explanations, it just doesn't consider them. Option B is incorrect as the conclusion is after the premise in the argument structure. Option D is less precise than C because the core issue is the lack of proof of causation, not just insufficient evidence in a general sense.

Answer:

Premise: I became sick soon after eating at Burger Hut.
Conclusion: Burger Hut food made me sick.

Part (b)