220k views
2 votes
Two friends wanted to decide where to go for dinner. Their conversation went like this: "We need to get something to eat. How about Sharky's so we can watch the game on TV? No, Sharky's is too noisy. Ok, how about we get pizza at the Pie Hub? The Hub is great with me." In that conversation the statement "The Hub is great with me" would be analyzed and mapped as __________.

1 Answer

5 votes

This question is incomplete because the options are missing; here are the options:

In that conversation the statement "The Hub is great with me" would be analyzed and mapped as __________.

A. A counterargument

B. The chosen alternative

C. Rejected alternative

D. A reason

E. A recognition of the need to decide

The correct answer is The chosen alternative

Step-by-step explanation:

Mapping or analyzing an argument involves considering the function of each part of the argument in terms of categories such as reason, the main argument, counterargument, etc. In the case of the argument presented, the main point is where to eat. Moreover, there are two alternatives: Sharky's and Pie Hub. In this case, Sharky's is the first alternative and the rejected alternative because from the options available this is not chosen. Moreover, the second alternative is the chosen alternative; this is expressed in "The Hub is great with me" because this line shows both speakers have agreed on a place to it and this option or possible solution has been chosen.

User Chris Houghton
by
6.8k points