Original argument pattern:
Dana gave water intentionally.
Plant dies because of its succulent nature and dry soil requirements.
So, Dana intentionally killed plants. Non sense. May be she doesn't the requirements of that plant. SO, how can we blame the poor Dana?
Now, we need find out some logic similar to the above one.
(A) Jack stole $10 from Kelly and bet it on a race. The bet returned $100 to Jack. Therefore Jack really stole $100 from Kelly. : Oh. Still he is a thief. How can we say
...
Dana gave water intentionally.
Plant dies because of its succulent nature and dry soil requirements.
So, Dana intentionally killed plants. Non sense. May be she doesn't the requirements of that plant. SO, how can we blame the poor Dana?
Now, we need find out some logic similar to the above one.
(A) Jack stole $10 from Kelly and bet it on a race. The bet returned $100 to Jack. Therefore Jack really stole $100 from Kelly. : Oh. Still he is a thief. How can we say
...
.jpg)
