*1. argument：
- Premise:
Since the truth about human knowledge lies in the position of skepticism. (A)
And there is no way that we can know anything to be true (not-A)
- Conclusion: we may as well give up the search
Attack: the arguer cannot have it both way. If i want to learn something about human knowledge is true, as the arguer claims in the first premise, then i should learn it lies in the position of skepticism. Yet the arguer claims in an effort at rebuttal in the second premise that there is no way that we can know anything to be true. So, this incompatibility makes me give up the search.
*2. argument:
- Premise:
Since everyone can determine what is right (A)
And I think smoking marijuana is right
Because i don’t see anything unethical about smoking marijuana
- Conclusion : people who disagree about smoking marijuana is wrong.(not-A)
Attack: the conclusion that people who disagree about smoking marijuana is wrong (not-A) clearly contradicts the first premise that everyone can determine what is right(A).
Unless the arguer shows no respect for the morality of noncontradiction, anyone should abandon the argument altogether or at least find some way of satisfactorily resolving the contradiction.
