question 13 (2 points)
read and carefully consider the argument in the following passage in which the early enlightenment 17th century dutch philosopher baruch spinoza describes the reasoning of his opponents in their attempts to refute him:
\however, for a fuller explanation i will refute my opponents arguments, which all come down to this. firstly, they think that corporeal substance, insofar as it is substance, is made up of parts, and so the deny that it can be infinite, and consequently that it can pertain to god. this they illustrate with many examples, of which i will take one or two. they say that if corporeal substance is infinite, suppose it to be divided into two parts. each of these parts is either finite or infinite. if the former, then the infinite is made up of two finite parts, which is absurd. if the latter, then there is an infinite which is twice as great as another infinite, which is also absurd.\
of the following sentences, which expresses the conclusion of the argument spinoza attributes to his opponents?
his they illustrate with many examples, of which i will take one or two.\
\if an infinite corporeal substance is made of two infinite parts, then there is an infinite which is twice as great as another infinite.\
\corporeal substance cannot be infinite, and god is not a corporeal substance.\
question 14 (2 points)
read and carefully consider the argument in the following passage reconstructing of the pre - socratic ancient greek philosopher zeno the eleatics paradox of motion, by the author brian palmer writing in slate magazine:
\achilles, the fleet - footed hero of the trojan war, is engaged in a race with a lowly tortoise, which has been granted a head start. achilles task initially seems easy, but he has a problem. before he can overtake the tortoise, he must first catch up with it. while achilles is covering the gap between himself and the tortoise that existed at the start of the race, however, the tortoise creates a new gap. the new gap is smaller than the first, but it is still a finite distance that achilles must cover to catch up with the animal. achilles then races across the new gap. to achilles frustration, while he was scampering across the second gap, the tortoise was establishing a third. the upshot is that achilles can never overtake the tortoise. no matter how quickly achilles closes each gap, the slow - but - steady tortoise will always open new, smaller ones and remain just ahead of the greek hero.\
of the following sentences, which expresses a premise of zenos argument?
he new gap is smaller than the first, but it is still a finite distance that achilles must cover to catch up with the animal.\
\achilles task initially seems easy, but he has a problem.\
he upshot is that achilles can never overtake the tortoise.\

Question

question 13 (2 points)
read and carefully consider the argument in the following passage in which the early enlightenment 17th century dutch philosopher baruch spinoza describes the reasoning of his opponents in their attempts to refute him:
\however, for a fuller explanation i will refute my opponents arguments, which all come down to this. firstly, they think that corporeal substance, insofar as it is substance, is made up of parts, and so the deny that it can be infinite, and consequently that it can pertain to god. this they illustrate with many examples, of which i will take one or two. they say that if corporeal substance is infinite, suppose it to be divided into two parts. each of these parts is either finite or infinite. if the former, then the infinite is made up of two finite parts, which is absurd. if the latter, then there is an infinite which is twice as great as another infinite, which is also absurd.\
of the following sentences, which expresses the conclusion of the argument spinoza attributes to his opponents?
  	his they illustrate with many examples, of which i will take one or two.\
  \if an infinite corporeal substance is made of two infinite parts, then there is an infinite which is twice as great as another infinite.\
  \corporeal substance cannot be infinite, and god is not a corporeal substance.\
question 14 (2 points)
read and carefully consider the argument in the following passage reconstructing of the pre - socratic ancient greek philosopher zeno the eleatics paradox of motion, by the author brian palmer writing in slate magazine:
\achilles, the fleet - footed hero of the trojan war, is engaged in a race with a lowly tortoise, which has been granted a head start. achilles task initially seems easy, but he has a problem. before he can overtake the tortoise, he must first catch up with it. while achilles is covering the gap between himself and the tortoise that existed at the start of the race, however, the tortoise creates a new gap. the new gap is smaller than the first, but it is still a finite distance that achilles must cover to catch up with the animal. achilles then races across the new gap. to achilles frustration, while he was scampering across the second gap, the tortoise was establishing a third. the upshot is that achilles can never overtake the tortoise. no matter how quickly achilles closes each gap, the slow - but - steady tortoise will always open new, smaller ones and remain just ahead of the greek hero.\
of the following sentences, which expresses a premise of zenos argument?
  	he new gap is smaller than the first, but it is still a finite distance that achilles must cover to catch up with the animal.\
  \achilles task initially seems easy, but he has a problem.\
  	he upshot is that achilles can never overtake the tortoise.\

Accepted Answer

### Question 13
# Brief Explanations:
To find the conclusion of the opponents' argument, we analyze the passage. The opponents' reasoning starts with the idea that corporeal substance (as substance) is made of parts, leading them to deny it can be infinite or pertain to God. The first option is about illustrating with examples (not a conclusion). The second is a premise/step in the reasoning (about dividing infinite parts). The third option ("Corporeal substance cannot be infinite, and God is not a corporeal substance") captures the final claim of the opponents' argument, as it's the result of their reasoning about parts and infinity.
# Answer:
C. "Corporeal substance cannot be infinite, and God is not a corporeal substance."

### Question 14
# Brief Explanations:
To identify a premise of Zeno's argument, we recall that a premise is a statement that supports the conclusion. The conclusion here is that Achilles can never overtake the tortoise. The first option ("The new gap is smaller than the first, but it is still a finite distance that Achilles must cover to catch up with the animal") is a premise because it explains why Achilles keeps having to cover new gaps (supporting the conclusion). The second option is an introduction to the problem (not a premise). The third option is the conclusion (not a premise).
# Answer:
A. "The new gap is smaller than the first, but it is still a finite distance that Achilles must cover to catch up with the animal."

Sovi.AI - AI Math Tutor

QUESTION IMAGE

Question

Explanation:

Question 13

Answer:

Question 14