• Check the rest of the evidence. Cookie breath, full stomach, crumbs. Ect...
  • At least she learned to wash her hands=)
  • I would never ask a child to prove they did not do anything. You cannot prove a negative.
  • i can picture it - cute!
  • I would tell them that there is a hidden camera in the cookie jar and I will know if they are lying to me lol.
  • I'd say, "Nice try, kid -- now let me smell your breath"...
  • She is using inductive reasoning and is basically saying: Chocolate chip cookies leave stains on your hands. (all the cookies she has touched have left stains) Therefore all chocolate chip cookies leave stains. She is also using deductive reasoning: All chocolate chip cookies leave stains on your hands. There are no stains on her hands. Therefore she hasn't touched a chocolate chip cookie. Her premise was basically stated within her reasoning. The conclusion is that she is innocent of having stolen a chocolate chip cookie. This is a very unconvincing argument. If you can prove one section of her reasoning false then the argument falls. Therefore, if you can either prove that there are stains on her hands or that chocolate chip cookies do not always leave stains, then her argument falls.
  • All people who steal chocolate chip cookies do not have chocolate stains on their hands. Crumbs, yes, but not necessarily chocolate.
  • Ask her to open her mouth. You will find traces of chocolate there.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy