Solutions

Solution to Argument 1:

• Premises: "Most politicians are corrupt." "Hans is a politician."
• Conclusion: "Hans is probably corrupt."
• Hidden assumptions: Corruption is evenly distributed among politicians; there are no special factors that distinguish Hans from other politicians.
• Type of argument: Inductive (statistical argument)
• Strength: Medium — the conclusion follows with a certain probability, but not with certainty.
• Possible improvements: Include more specific information about Hans; define the term "corrupt" more precisely.

Solution to Argument 2:

• Premises: "Either we lower taxes, or the economy will collapse." "We cannot afford for the economy to collapse."
• Conclusion: "We must lower taxes."
• Hidden assumptions: There are only these two options; lowering taxes would actually prevent an economic collapse.
• Type of argument: Deductive (disjunctive syllogism)
• Strength: Weak — the first premise represents a false dichotomy.
• Possible improvements: Consider further options; cite empirical evidence for the connection between tax policy and economic performance.

Solution to Argument 3:

• Premises: "For the last three years it has always rained on the first weekend in July."
• Conclusion: "It will rain on the first weekend in July this year too."
• Hidden assumptions: Past weather patterns continue into the future; three years are a sufficient sample.
• Type of argument: Inductive (generalization from examples)
• Strength: Weak — the sample is too small, and weather patterns are complex and variable.
• Possible improvements: Include longer-term weather data; take into account meteorological factors that influence the weather.

Solution to Argument 4:

• Premises: "Studies have shown that people who meditate regularly experience less stress." "Maria wants to reduce her stress."
• Conclusion: "Maria should meditate regularly."
• Hidden assumptions: What works for most people will also work for Maria; meditation is the best or only method of reducing stress for Maria.
• Type of argument: Practical argument (means-end reasoning)
• Strength: Medium — the conclusion is plausible, but not compelling.
• Possible improvements: Consider other methods of stress reduction; include Maria's specific situation and preferences.

Solution to Argument 5:

• Premises: "If the sun is shining, the snow will melt." "The snow is melting."
• Conclusion: "The sun is shining."
• Hidden assumptions: Sunshine is the only cause of melting snow.
• Type of argument: Deductive (attempts to be modus ponens, but commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent)
• Strength: Weak — logically invalid, since there can be other causes of melting snow (e.g. warm temperatures without direct sunshine, rain, artificial heat sources).
• Possible improvements: Reformulate it as an abductive argument: "The snow is melting. One possible explanation is that the sun is shining. If no other factors are present, the sun is probably shining."