Final answer:
Substantial objections to premises in arguments include claims that they are false, irrelevant, circular, inadequate, or that other arguments offer equal or better support. In contrast, insubstantial objections don't significantly impact the argument's validity.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the context of analyzing arguments, the terms substantial and insubstantial objections to premises can be related to a few different criteria. An objection to a premise is considered substantial if it meaningfully affects the validity of the argument; this could mean the premise is false or questionable, irrelevant to the conclusion, engages in circular reasoning, or is simply inadequate to support the conclusion. In contrast, insubstantial objections might include quibbles over trivial details that do not alter the overall strength or validity of the argument.
Problems with arguments that lead to substantial objections often include premises that contain the conclusion (circular reasoning), premises that are false, irrelevant, or inadequate to support the conclusion, and cases where alternative arguments exist with equal or greater support. Proper assessment of arguments involves not only evaluating the logical structure but also the truthfulness and relevance of the premises themselves.