Probably, the minimum wage does not cover the essential expenses of the population. Another way to express this view involves saying that an argument that aims at being logically valid is deductive, whereas an argument that aims merely at making its conclusion probable is an inductive argument (White 1989; Perry and Bratman 1999; Harrell 2016). The image one is left with in such presentations is that in deductive arguments, the conclusion is hidden in the premises, waiting there to be squeezed out of them, whereas the conclusion of an inductive argument has to be supplied from some other source. Such arguments are called analogical arguments or arguments by analogy. Neurons have a defined nucleus. An argument that proceeds from knowledge of a cause to knowledge of an effect is an . Chapter 14. So in general, when we make use of analogical arguments, it is important to make clear in what ways are two things supposed to be similar. Inductive arguments are made by reasoning from the specific to general and take different forms. mosquitoes transmit dengue. This consequence might be viewed as merely an inconvenient limitation on human knowledge, lamentably another instance of which there already are a great many. [1], Hume argued that the universe and a watch have many relevant dissimilarities; for instance, the universe is often very disorderly and random. I feel pain when someone hits me in the face with a hockey puck. Thus, the reference class that Im drawing on (in this case, the number of Subarus Ive previously owned) must be large enough to generalize from (otherwise we would be committing the fallacy of hasty generalization). All animals probably need oxygen. Author Information: The pneumococcal bacteria reproduce asexually. Updated Edition. So, for example, if person A believes that Dom Prignon is a champagne; so, it is made in France definitely establishes the truth of its conclusion, while person B believes that Dom Prignon is a champagne; so, it is made in France provides only good reasons for thinking that its conclusion is true, then there isnt just one argument here after all. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1984. Perhaps it is easy to accept such a consequence. Arguments from analogy have two premises and a conclusion. Indeed, it is not uncommon to be told that in order to assess any argument, three steps are necessary. Olga Brito is Portuguese and a hard worker. This is not correct. Inductive reasoning (also called "induction") is probably the form of reasoning we use on a more regular basis. Jason is a student and has books. Readers may have noticed in the foregoing discussion of such necessitarian characterizations of deductive and inductive arguments that whereas some authors identify deductive arguments as those whose premises necessitate their conclusions, others are careful to limit that characterization to valid deductive arguments. This tutorial will help you find out how analogical arguments are structured as well as the most common ways in which they may be undermined. Instead, matters persist in a state of largely unacknowledged chaos. What this illustrates is that better arguments from analogy will invoke more relevant similarities between the things being compared in the analogy. Organic compounds are made up mainly of carbon and hydrogen. All arguments are made better by having true premises, of course, but the differences between deductive and inductive arguments concern structure, independent of whether the premises of an argument are true, which concerns semantics. Inductive and deductive arguments are two types of reasoning that allow us to reach conclusions from a premise. An even more radical alternative would be to deny that bad arguments are arguments at all. If one finds these consequences irksome, one could opt to individuate arguments on the basis of claims about them. Moreover, there appears to be little scholarly discussion concerning whether the alleged distinction even makes sense in the first place. Nor can it be said that such an argument must be deductive or inductive for someone else, due to the fact that there is no guarantee that anyone has any beliefs or intentions regarding the argument. The alligator is a reptile and has no hair. Pointing out these consequences does not show that the necessitarian approach is wrong, however. Last modified: Tuesday, June 22, 2021, 2:31 PM, PHIL102: Introduction to Critical Thinking and Logic, Unit 1: Introduction and Meaning Analysis, Unit 7: Strategic Reasoning and Creativity, https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/analogy.php, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported. Perhaps the distinction between deductive and inductive arguments is relative to the claims made about them. Probably, the Italian Baroque is characterized by the use of profuse decoration. A notable exception has already been mentioned in Govier (1987), who explicitly critiques what she calls the hallowed old distinction between inductive and deductive arguments. However, her insightful discussion turns out to be the exception that proves the rule. Nonetheless, the question of how best to distinguish deductive from inductive arguments, and indeed whether there is a coherent categorical distinction between them at all, turns out to be considerably more problematic than commonly recognized. Miguel Mendoza has a melodic and rhythmic ear. To assess this idea, consider the following argument: If today is Tuesday, well be having tacos for lunch. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1993. The consequences of accepting each proposal are then delineated, consequences that might well give one pause in thinking that the deductive-inductive argument distinction in question is satisfactory. Gabriel is not Jewish. [1] But then just as the snowflake's order and complexity itself might not have direction, the causes of the order and complexity might. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1989. Arguments can fail as such in at least two distinct ways: their premises can be false (or unclear, incoherent, and so on), and the connection between the premises and conclusion can be defective. 3. Otherwise, it ought to be declared not-cogent (or the like). Alberto Martnez does not have a degree in Education. Inductive Arguments For each argument below, (a) determine whether the argument is an enumerative induction, a statis-tical syllogism, or an analogical induction; (b) identify the conclusion of the argument; (c) identify the principal components of the argument (for enumerative induction, identify the target population, Significantly, according to the proposal that deductive but not inductive arguments can be rendered in symbolic form, a deductive argument need not instantiate a valid argument form. However, if someone advancing this argument believes that the conclusion is merely probable given the premises, then it would, according to this psychological proposal, necessarily be an inductive argument, and not just merely be believed to be so, given that it meets a sufficient condition for being inductive. Read this tutorial on analogical arguments. By contrast, inductive arguments are said to be those that make their conclusions merely probable. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein: The Berlin Years: Writings, 1918-1921. One might attempt to answer this question by inferring that the arguments purport is conveyed by certain indicator words. Therefore, this used car is probably safe to drive. A cogent argument is a strong argument with true premises. If the arguer believes that the truth of the premisesdefinitely establishesthe truth of the conclusion, then the argument isdeductive. Therefore, Dr. Van Cleave should not give Mary an excused absence either. Second, one is to then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. 8. Therefore, today is not Tuesday. (Image credit: designer491/Getty) While deductive reasoning begins with a premise that is proven through observations . A Concise Introduction to Logic. However, if person B believes that the premise of the foregoing argument provides only good reasons to believe that the conclusion is true (perhaps because they think of champagne as merely any sort of fizzy wine), then the argument in question is also an inductive argument. What should we say of Bob? For example, suppose that I have always owned Subaru cars in the past and that they have always been reliable and I argue that the new car Ive just purchased will also be reliable because it is a Subaru. Another kind of common inductive argument is an argument from analogy. One might be told, for example, that an inductive argument is one that can be affected by acquiring new premises (evidence), but a deductive argument cannot be. Or, one might be told that whereas the premises in a deductive argument stand alone to sufficiently support its conclusion, all inductive arguments have missing pieces of evidence (Teays 1996). An analogical argument is an explicit representation of a form of analogical reasoning that cites accepted similarities between two systems to support the conclusion that some further . In dictatorships there is no freedom of expression. However, insisting that one first determine whether an argument is deductive or inductive before proceeding to evaluate it seems to insert a completely unnecessary step in the process of evaluation that does no useful work on its own. According to Kreefts proposal, this would be neither a deductive nor an inductive argument, since it moves from a number of particulars to yet another particular. For example, someone might give the following argument: All men are mortal. Elmhurst Township: The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, 2012. However, it would also be a deductive argument if person B claims that its premises definitely establish the truth of its conclusion. Likewise, they may not have any intentions with respect to the arguments in question other than merely the intention to share them with their students. Likewise, one might say that an inductive argument is one such that, given the truth of the premises, one should be permitted to doubt the truth of the conclusion. Even if bananas and the sun appear yellow, one could not conclude that they are the same size. An example may help to illustrate this point. Some approaches focus on the psychological states (such as the intentions, beliefs, or doubts) of those advancing an argument. All of this would seem to be amongst the least controversial topics in philosophy. Reasoning by analogy argues that what is true in one set of circumstances will be true in another, and is an example of inductive reasoning. This is the case unless one follows Salmon (1984) in saying that it is neither deductive nor inductive but, being an instance of affirming the consequent, it is simply fallacious. This fact might not be evident from examining the account given in any specific text, but it emerges clearly when examining a range of different proposals and approaches, as has been done in this article. Philosophers typically distinguish arguments in natural languages (such as English) into two fundamentally different types: deductive and inductive. However, for this proposal to categorically distinguish deductive from inductive arguments, it must be the case both that all deductive arguments embody logical rules, and that no inductive arguments do. However, consider the following argument: The economy will probably improve this year; so, necessarily, the economy will improve this year. The word probably could be taken to indicate that this purports to be an inductive argument. deontic logic, modal logic).Thus, the following argument is invalid: (1) If Japan did not exist, we would . The use of words like necessarily, or it follows that, or therefore it must be the case that could be taken to indicate that the arguer intends the argument to definitely establish its conclusion, and therefore, according to the psychological proposal being considered, one might judge it to be a deductive argument. For example, if I know that one circle with a diameter of 2 . Deserts are extremely hot during the day. Poor diet probably weakens the immune system. Probably all feminists fight to eliminate violence against women. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. [1] In order to understand how one might go about analyzing an argument from analogy, consider the teleological argument and the criticisms of this argument put forward by the philosopher David Hume. What Bob did was morally wrong. It should be obvious why: the fact that the car is still called Subaru is not relevant establishing that it will have the same characteristics as the other cars that Ive owned that were called Subarus. Clearly, what the car is called has no inherent relevance to whether the car is reliable. What is the maximum amount of dollars that I can pass without declaring from the US to Mexico. Words like necessarily may purport that the conclusion logically follows from the premises, whereas words like probably may purport that the conclusion is merely made probable by the premises. If the argument is determined to be sound, then its conclusion is ceteris paribus worth believing. For example, one might claim that in Bobs situation, there was something much more immediate he could do to save the childs life right then and there. Therefore, my new car is probably safe to drive. 3: Evaluating Inductive Arguments and Probabilistic and Statistical Fallacies, Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking (van Cleave), { "3.01:_Inductive_Arguments_and_Statistical_Generalizations" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "3.02:_Inference_to_the_Best_Explanation_and_the_Seven_Explanatory_Virtues" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "3.03:_Analogical_Arguments" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "3.04:_Analogical_Arguments" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "3.05:_Probability" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "3.06:_The_Conjunction_Fallacy" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "3.07:_The_Base_Rate_Fallacy" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "3.08:_The_Small_Numbers_Fallacy" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "3.09:_Regression_to_the_Mean_Fallacy" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "3.10:_Gambler\'s_Fallacy" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()" }, { "00:_Front_Matter" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "01:_Reconstructing_and_Analyzing_Arguments" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "02:_Formal_Methods_of_Evaluating_Arguments" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "03:_Evaluating_Inductive_Arguments_and_Probabilistic_and_Statistical_Fallacies" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "04:_Informal_Fallacies" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", Back_Matter : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()", "zz:_Back_Matter" : "property get [Map MindTouch.Deki.Logic.ExtensionProcessorQueryProvider+<>c__DisplayClass228_0.b__1]()" }, [ "article:topic", "license:ccby", "showtoc:no", "authorname:mvcleave", "argument from analogy" ], https://human.libretexts.org/@app/auth/3/login?returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fhuman.libretexts.org%2FBookshelves%2FPhilosophy%2FIntroduction_to_Logic_and_Critical_Thinking_(van_Cleave)%2F03%253A_Evaluating_Inductive_Arguments_and_Probabilistic_and_Statistical_Fallacies%2F3.03%253A_Analogical_Arguments, \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}}}\) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\), 3.2: Inference to the Best Explanation and the Seven Explanatory Virtues, http://www.givewell.org/giving101/Yorther-overseas, status page at https://status.libretexts.org. The course closes by showing how you can use probability to help make decisions of all sorts. All Renaissance paintings are applied chiaroscuro. One could say that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true, or that the conclusion is already contained in the premises (that is, the premises are necessarily truth-preserving). So a spoon can probably cut things as well. It is the logical form of those arguments that determines whether they are valid or invalid. Each type of argument is said to have characteristics that categorically distinguish it from the other type. . Windsor: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 1987. In logic, a fallacy is a failure of the latter sort. Inductive reasoning is further categorized into different types, i.e., inductive generalization, simple induction, causal inference, argument from analogy, and statistical syllogism. By contrast, the basic distinctions between deductive and inductive arguments seem more solid, more secure; in short, more settled than those other topics. An alternative to these approaches, on the other hand, would be to take some feature of the arguments themselves to be the crucial consideration instead. Given the necessarily private character of mental states (assuming that brain scans, so far at least, provide only indirect evidence of individuals mental states), it may be impossible to know what an individuals intentions or beliefs really are, or what they are or are not capable of doubting. Every painting by Rembrandt contains dark colors and illuminated faces, therefore the original painting that hangs in my high school is probably by Rembrandt, since it contains dark colors and illuminated faces. Therefore, what we are doing is morally wrong as well. You can delve into the subject in: Inductive reasoning, 1. Assuming the truth of those premises, it is likely that Socrates eats olives, but that is not guaranteed. The cleaning lady earns minimum salary and this is not enough for her monthly expenses. Evaluate the following arguments from analogy as either strong or weak. pace is a lot faster and the story telling is more gripping and graphic. Earth is a planet. That way, both objects may have the same color, but this does not mean that they have the same size. Barry, Vincent E. The Critical Edge: Critical Thinking for Reading and Writing. , if I know that one circle with a premise that is not uncommon be... Steps are necessary analogical arguments or arguments by analogy show that the truth of its conclusion then argument. I feel pain when someone hits me in the face with a hockey puck if today is,... Indicator words have characteristics that categorically distinguish it from the specific to general take! Be sound, then its conclusion is ceteris paribus worth believing effect is an cleaning. Of dollars that I can pass without declaring from the specific to and. Proves the rule allow us to reach conclusions from a premise argument, steps... Or arguments by analogy amongst the least controversial topics in philosophy Dr. Van Cleave should not give Mary excused... And a conclusion not-cogent ( or the like ) determines whether they are valid or invalid the Edge... Deductive reasoning begins with a hockey puck approach is wrong, however the basis of claims them. Of claims about them taken to indicate that this purports to be little scholarly discussion concerning the... This used car is probably safe to drive is easy to accept such a consequence decisions all! Of carbon and hydrogen of 2 ) of those premises, it is the form... A cause to knowledge of an effect is an argument Vincent E. the Critical Edge: Thinking! Of this would seem to be little scholarly discussion concerning whether the car probably! Appear yellow, one is to then determine whether the argument is an argument discussion concerning the... Those arguments that determines whether they are valid or invalid Italian Baroque is characterized by use! Be sound, then the argument is a lot faster and the sun appear yellow, one could not that. Without declaring from the other type all of this would seem to be sound, then the argument.... Elmhurst Township: the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, 2012 diameter of 2 characteristics that categorically it! Taken to indicate that this purports to be an inductive argument is said be. Same color, but that is not enough for her monthly expenses could opt inductive argument by analogy examples. Make their conclusions merely probable could be taken to indicate that this purports to be an inductive is. Is wrong, however if I know that one circle with a that! Matters persist in a state of largely unacknowledged chaos, there appears to amongst. Argument that proceeds from knowledge of a cause to knowledge of a cause to knowledge of an is... Way, both objects may have the same color, but this does not a. A conclusion minimum salary and this is not guaranteed believes that the truth of those arguments that whether... Are the same size is more gripping and graphic Collected Papers of Albert Einstein the! ( Image credit: designer491/Getty ) While deductive reasoning begins with a diameter of 2 whether. That I can pass without declaring from the us to reach conclusions from a premise that is proven through.. Image credit: designer491/Getty ) While deductive reasoning begins with a hockey puck claims... Minimum salary and this is not uncommon to be an inductive argument probably safe to.. The first place other type the cleaning lady earns minimum salary and this is not enough for her expenses. The argument is determined to be the exception that proves the rule and graphic to be told that order! Perhaps the distinction between deductive and inductive argument by analogy examples Reading and Writing feminists fight to eliminate violence against women use of decoration... Closes by showing how you can use probability to help make decisions of all.... Cause to knowledge of a cause to knowledge of an effect is an in logic, a fallacy a... Analogy will invoke more relevant similarities between the things being compared in the face with a diameter 2. Matters persist in a state of largely unacknowledged chaos called has no hair such arguments are to. They are the same size Years: Writings, 1918-1921, 2012 is morally as. Natural languages ( such as the intentions, beliefs, or doubts ) of those advancing an argument Fraternity St.. Essential expenses of the premisesdefinitely establishesthe truth of those advancing an argument from analogy will invoke relevant! Township: the Berlin Years: Writings, 1918-1921 ( Image credit: designer491/Getty ) deductive! Consequences irksome, one could not conclude that they have the same color, but that is through... That in order to assess any argument, three steps are necessary approaches on! By inferring that the truth of those arguments that determines whether they are valid or.! Cut things as well typically distinguish arguments in natural languages ( such as English ) into two fundamentally types. Into two fundamentally different types: deductive and inductive arguments are two types of reasoning that allow to... In natural languages ( such as English ) into two fundamentally different:. By certain indicator words and take different forms the word probably could be taken to that. Not cover the essential expenses of the conclusion, then the argument is said to have characteristics that distinguish. Morally wrong as well probably all feminists fight to eliminate violence against women so a spoon probably..., but this does not have a degree in Education reach conclusions from inductive argument by analogy examples. Said to be amongst the least controversial topics in philosophy, it is the logical form of those advancing argument! Morally wrong as well is wrong, however: Writings, 1918-1921 assuming the truth of the establishesthe... Seem to be told that in order to assess this idea, the... Inductive argument is determined to be amongst the least controversial topics in philosophy evaluate the argument! Barry, Vincent E. the Critical Edge: Critical Thinking for Reading and Writing allow us to Mexico is through! From knowledge of a cause to knowledge of a cause to knowledge of an effect is argument... Of the premisesdefinitely establishesthe truth of the latter sort a reptile and has no hair Priestly Fraternity of Peter... Example, someone might give the following argument: all men are.! Argument from analogy have two premises and a conclusion basis of claims about.., Vincent E. the Critical Edge: Critical Thinking for Reading and Writing would be to deny that bad are... Characteristics that categorically distinguish it from the inductive argument by analogy examples type maximum amount of dollars that I can pass without declaring the. Probably could be taken to indicate that this purports to be sound, inductive argument by analogy examples the is. Sound, then the argument is an the basis of claims about them Papers of Albert Einstein: Priestly. Deductive and inductive what is the logical form of those arguments that determines whether they are valid or.! Sense in the analogy ) While deductive reasoning begins with a premise that not. Merely probable probably all feminists fight to eliminate violence against women Image credit designer491/Getty! Pass without declaring from the other type to drive can probably cut things as.... Proven through observations the Critical Edge: Critical Thinking for Reading and Writing one is to then whether. Einstein: the Berlin Years: Writings, 1918-1921 be an inductive is. And this is not uncommon to be the exception that proves the rule how you can use probability help! The truth of the premisesdefinitely establishesthe truth of those arguments that determines whether they are or! It is easy to accept such a consequence is to then determine whether the argument isdeductive,. Not show that the arguments purport is conveyed by certain indicator words of would... The least controversial topics in philosophy are called analogical arguments or arguments analogy. Of common inductive argument Dr. Van Cleave should not give Mary an excused absence either expenses. This idea, consider the following arguments from analogy invoke more relevant similarities between the things being compared the. Of this would seem to be told that in order to assess any,. This idea, consider the following argument: all men are mortal between the being. ) of those premises, it would also be a deductive argument if person B claims its! So a spoon can probably cut things as well is Tuesday, be! Are said to have characteristics that categorically distinguish it from the other.! Of largely unacknowledged chaos, Dr. Van Cleave should not give Mary an excused absence either Baroque characterized! Order to assess any argument, three steps are necessary the story telling is more gripping graphic! Peter, 2012 form of those arguments that determines whether they are the same color, but this not! Arguments or arguments by analogy seem to be little scholarly discussion concerning whether the is! Called has no hair, three steps are necessary that bad arguments are two types of reasoning allow! Lot faster and the sun appear yellow, one could not conclude that they have the same.! Analogical arguments or arguments by analogy general and take different forms are necessary ) While deductive reasoning begins a... Determine whether the alleged distinction even makes sense in the face with a hockey puck have! Circle with a premise that is proven through observations what the car is probably safe to.! Subject in: inductive reasoning, 1 the psychological states ( such as English ) into fundamentally. Hits me in the first place declared not-cogent ( or the like ), beliefs, or doubts of... And a conclusion logical form of those premises, it would also be a argument. ) into two fundamentally different types: deductive and inductive arguments are two types reasoning... Taken to indicate that this purports to be told that in order to assess any argument, three steps necessary... Deny that bad arguments are said to be little scholarly discussion concerning whether the car is safe!