Final answer:
Reiman's critique focuses on the lack of incontrovertible evidence to support events that seemingly violate laws of nature, and suggests that such claims often fall prey to logical fallacies like appeals to ignorance and the use of biased samples.
Step-by-step explanation:
Reiman's criticism of the first premise of the Argument from Common Sense and Anecdotal Evidence revolves around questioning the evidence that supports any supposed event that violates the laws of nature. The criticism proposes that for an event to be established as having occurred, contrary to the laws of nature, one must provide exceptional and incontrovertible proof. Otherwise, the premise falls to the challenge of demonstrating that what is claimed to have happened is not simply an anomaly or misunderstanding of natural laws, but a genuine exception.
The critique further explores whether anecdotal experiences have enough merit to be considered reliable when they claim to demonstrate a breach of natural laws. Appeals to ignorance and biased samples are examples of fallacies that weaken such arguments by illustrating that lack of proof or biased evidence does not equate to proof of the extraordinary claim.