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

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.”
	There is an ambiguity in Y’s argument regarding what Y means by ‘opinions not counting.’ Two interpretations are plausible and the ambiguity can be resolved by creating two standardizations of the argument with different hidden premises:
1. You’re not Americans
HP2. 				
3. Therefore, your opinions don’t count
In each version 1 and 3 will be the same. You must supply the hidden second premise in each interpretation that generates the two distinct interpretations of the argument. Y’s argument is interesting in that each plausible interpretation produces a distinct problem for the argument. You must identify the problem with each interpretation of the argument.

I found the hidden premise
- only americans have value.

and the problem with interpretation in the hidden premsie is 
it's a weak argument ( unacceptable by observation).

Reed · Answer

Only American OPINIONS have value in an American election. She isn't saying her husband and friend are not persons of value.

But I don't know that it is unacceptable by observation. It is a weak argument, but what are you observing to substantiate that is weak?

Anonymous · Answer

it could be unacceptable problems in language

Reed · Answer

I would think language is plausible, but I have not read your text materials. I have no idea what approach your text is taking, whose tenets are being followed.