Discussion Question Number One: Part Six

Chapter Eight: General Claims

In this chapter, I found the explanation of how Epstein, along with many other concepts, a contradictory can come from any sort of general claim, which in realization, can be especially common with the plentiful groups of counterarguments and disagreements that can distribute contradictories in a person's argument. The text defines two terms that are used in arguments that can result with contradictories: "all" and "some". All is defined as "every single one, no exceptions," however, this term can vary by meaning "every single one, and there is at least one" (160). The variation will simply depend on the kind of argument presented. Some is defined as "at least one" or "at least one, but not all". (160) Again, the variation will lie on the kind of argument that is being talked about. The contradictory of a claim won't be its direct opposite, but rather its adjacent, so to speak. The example explained in the text illustrates the claim being that all dogs bark. The contradictory to that won't be its direct opposite (all dogs don't bark), but rather the adjacent: some dogs don't bark.

A personal example:
All mothers are women. (claim)
But not all women are mothers. (contradictory)

I, for instance, am a woman, but am not a mother. So by someone making that first sentence as their claim, there can be the possibility of someone else objecting and replying with the contradictory argument that simply because all mothers are women may not always mean or doesn't indicate that all women all mothers. There can be no interchanging of the words, especially in this case.