AndrewN wrote:
Shikhar22 wrote:
Hi AndrewAndrewN Need your views on this question. Thank you.
the option c says - It is a hypothesis that the argument attempts to undermine by calling into question the SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE - and it's the OA.
But the conclusion is that the previous hypothesis is nothing but a hasty infrence, with nothing about the sufficiency of the evidence. Is calling out a hypothesis as 'a hasty infrence’, presumes 'the lack of evidence' in thehypothesis?
[size=80] Posted from my mobiledevice
...
the option c says - It is a hypothesis that the argument attempts to undermine by calling into question the SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE - and it's the OA.
But the conclusion is that the previous hypothesis is nothing but a hasty infrence, with nothing about the sufficiency of the evidence. Is calling out a hypothesis as 'a hasty infrence’, presumes 'the lack of evidence' in thehypothesis?
[size=80] Posted from my mobiledevice
...
