2. In 2004 Z is having a conversation with his friend X and X’s wife Y. Y is a U.S. citizen and a ‘Bushy’ (a supporter of George W. Bush). She is planning on voting for Bush in the upcoming presidential election. Z and X (both are Canadian citizens, not Americans; one liberal and one conservative) are both arguing that Bush is not the best choice for President (primarily on the basis that Bush is an ‘unreflective’ man and that such a man should not occupy the most powerful executive office in the world). After listening to the supporting evidence offered by Z and X, Y responds to their argument as follows: “You’re not Americans, [therefore] your opinions don’t count.”

Question

There is a hidden premise in Y’s argument and an ambiguity regarding what does not count. One interpretation of Y’s argument is as follows:
P1. You’re not Americans
P2. Only American opinions have value
MC. Therefore, your opinions don’t count
This interpretation of the argument is obviously weak as Premise 2 is unacceptable by observation (recall Assignment 4).
There is another plausible interpretation of what Y means by ‘opinions not counting’ that raises an entirely different problem for the argument. You must provide that alternative as the hidden premise and identify the problem that this alternative interpretation of Y’s argument raises. (Worth 2 marks)

Answer 1

What now????