After reading all the comments, I still don't see how the water question isn't valid. Premise 'a' would have to be broken for it to be invalid.
"Question 15. a) Water is a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. b) Every observation or examination by microscope has confirmed this.
Conclusion Therefore we can predict that every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition."
If you were to ever examine WATER and find that it did not have "the same chemical composition"(i.e. "two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom"), then premise 'a' would be broken. Therefore it is impossible to find a different chemical composition because it is impossible to break a premise.
The reasoning given on the answer page doesn't make any sense for this conclusion. The existence of a substance with identical properties to water, but with different chemical composition, doesn't change the fact that is was WATER that was examined and this other substance. -------- I also believe the Paris question could be misleading because it in no ways states that the Paris from premise 'b' is the same Paris as in premise 'a'(there could be multiple locations named Paris or perhaps a premise refers to a individual named Paris).
Facebook used to be a niche market. Many people enjoyed this niche so Facebook grew and prospered. Now Facebook is wide open and the niche is not being served. But now, since everyone you know uses Facebook, it's hard for niche users to leave and still remain connected.
but I still suck at it
"Question 15.
a) Water is a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
b) Every observation or examination by microscope has confirmed this.
Conclusion
Therefore we can predict that every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition."
If you were to ever examine WATER and find that it did not have "the same chemical composition"(i.e. "two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom"), then premise 'a' would be broken. Therefore it is impossible to find a different chemical composition because it is impossible to break a premise.
The reasoning given on the answer page doesn't make any sense for this conclusion. The existence of a substance with identical properties to water, but with different chemical composition, doesn't change the fact that is was WATER that was examined and this other substance.
--------
I also believe the Paris question could be misleading because it in no ways states that the Paris from premise 'b' is the same Paris as in premise 'a'(there could be multiple locations named Paris or perhaps a premise refers to a individual named Paris).
with what, a cork?
nice