Final answer:
Part (a) and example 3 do not contradict because part (a) focuses on the subjectivity or objectivity of questions, while example 3 addresses the logical structure and validity of an argument.
Step-by-step explanation:
To understand why part (a) and example 3 do not contradict one another, we need to analyze the context of each statement. Part (a) refers to subjectivity in questions, suggesting that questions 1 and 2 cannot be disproven using the scientific method, implying that they are based on personal beliefs or perspectives. In contrast, questions 3 and 4 are described as testable through scientific methods, suggesting objectivity. Example 3, as given, highlights a scenario where a conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises even if they are true, indicating the fallibility of inferences.
Therefore, the non-contradiction between part (a) and example 3 can be understood as following: while part (a) distinguishes between subjective and objective questions, example 3 illustrates a logical consideration where premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. In other words, part (a) is about the nature of the questions, and example 3 is about the structure of an argument. The former deals with the content's susceptibility to verification, and the latter with the logical form of the argument.