assuming#2

Question

0Politician: An investigation must be launched into the operations of the private group that is training recruits to fight against Country Z. The Neutrality Act plainly forbids citizens from engaging in military campaigns against any nation with which we are not at war. Since no war has been declared between us and Country Z, we should bring charges against these fanatics, who are in open defiance of the law. 02br02br00What is the author assuming?02br02br00Assuming means that connects evidence and conclusion. 0-

Clive · Accepted Answer

0Hi,02br
02br
01font00What is the author assuming?02font00 It's not apparent in this paragraph that the author is assuming anything.02br
02br
01font00Assuming means that connects evidence and conclusion. 02font00I disagree with this definition. In this kind00 of context, 'to assume something' means 'to accept something as being true without any proof or evidence. 02br
02br
00Best wishes, Clive0-

BW2/3 · Answer

0Thank you very much Clive, 02br
02br
00I totally agree with you that the assumption is not apparent. Assumption is something unstated evidence according to my instructor. 02br
02br
00What do you think what the assumption is because I have hard time to figure out?02br
02br
00I should have said assumption is the missing piece that connects the evidence and conclusion. 02br
02br
00In this case, I think the conclusion is 'we should bring charges these fanatics.'0-

Clive · Answer

0Hi again,02br
02br
00I don't think you really understand what an assumption is. Please read my last post again.02br
02br
00eg If the bank's video camera shows Tom robbing the bank, that's evidence.02br
02br
00But if I think Tom robbed the bank just because he bought a new car today, I'm making an assumption. In other words, I'm believing something with no real evidence.02br
02br
00Best wishes, Clive0-

Dawnstorm · Answer

0 I agree with Clive that no assumption is apparant in this text, but, if we ourselves assume that there is exactly one assumption in this paragraph, then we can single out the most likely candidate.02br
02br
00Candidates:02br
02br
001. "the private group that is training recruits...": Is the private group actually training recruits? If it isn't, the conclusion falls apart.02br
02br
002. "The Neutrality Act plainly forbids citizens from engaging...": Does the NA forbid citizens from engaging in military campaigns? If it doesn't the conclusion falls apart.02br
02br
003. "Since no war has been declared...": Has a war been declared between "them" and "country Z"? If yes, the conclusion falls apart.02br
02br
00(3) is least likely to be an assumption. It is very hard to miss being at war. A politician who gets such a basic fact wrong would probably not last very long in his office.02br
02br
00(2) is also unlikely to be an assumption. The speaker may be unaware of, or try to hide, deviant interpretations of the exact wording of the Act. Or he could have made a simple mistake; the NA might not concern citizens so much as public institutions (citizens may not be barred from becoming "soldiers of fortune", for example, or wether they are could not be "plain", but "debatable" in legal terms). As I said, I find it unlikely that this is "the" assumption made, but it's still possible.02br
02br
00(1) I find this to be the most likely candidate. Scape-goating, slander, mis-representation of facts, etc. is not all that rare in political rhetorics.02br
02br
00So, if I was skeptical of the argument, the first thing I'd research would be the private group, the second the "Neutrality Act" and it's interpretation. I doubt it would occur to me to check whether the country is at war.02br
02br
00Hope this helps.0-

assuming#2

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions