False. The statement contains both objective and subjective elements. The first part regarding Mr. Totes entering the premises illegally and the existence of security footage can be considered objective facts if they are indeed verifiable. However, the assertions about his intentions (i.e., that he "willfully entered...with the intent to cause destruction") and the judgment about the moral implications of his actions ("outrageous amounts the owner had to pay for repairs") introduce subjective interpretations and opinions. Therefore, the entire statement cannot be deemed purely objective.
True or false: the following is an objective statement.
It is a proven fact that Mr Totes entered the premises illegally to make a telephone call. Security camera footage shows him kicking down the door of the premises. However, this was an emergency situation, as Mrs Totes had been stabbed outside the premises, and an ambulance had to be called. Mr Totes did not have his mobile phone with him at the time. Mr Totes could have knocked on the doors of surrounding houses instead of inflicting damage in excess of the stated outrageous amounts the owner of the premises had to pay for repairs. Mr Totes willfully entered the premises with the intent to cause destruction. Find him guilty of breaking and entering.
1 answer