René Descartes

Consider the following argument: Cats like to chase mice Felix is a cat Felix likes to chase mice Which of the following quantifier changes to premise 1 would make the argument cogent? Group of answer choices All cats like to chase mice Most cats like to chase mice No cats like to chase mice Either (a) or (c) would work

When I am presented with such an argument, my mind is immediately drawn to the question of certainty. How can we be certain that all cats like to chase mice based on the premise that cats like to chase mice? Is it possible that there are some cats who do not share this particular inclination? And if so, how can we assert with absolute certainty that all cats conform to this behavior? It is a question of necessity versus contingency, of universality versus particularity. We must consider the possibility that there may be exceptions to the rule, that there may be cats who, for whatever reason, do not take pleasure in the pursuit of mice. And if we cannot claim with certainty that all cats like to chase mice, then how can we deduce that Felix, being a cat, must also like to chase mice? It is a slippery slope of logic, a delicate dance between premises and conclusions, between the general and the specific. In my contemplation of this argument, I find myself questioning the very foundations of reasoning, of the assumptions we make in order to construct our understanding of the world. And so I am left with the realization that perhaps certainty is an illusion, that the only true knowledge we can possess is that of our own existence. As for which quantifier change would make this argument cogent, I am inclined to believe that both (a) and (c) may serve to strengthen the argument, as they present clearer and more absolute statements than the original premise. But even then, I must caution against the assumption of absolute certainty, for in the realm of philosophical inquiry, doubt is ever-present, and certainty remains an elusive goal."