and mr. washington thus faces the triple paradox of his career: 1. he is striving nobly to make negro artisans business men and property - owners; but it is utterly impossible, under modern competitive methods, for workingmen and property - owners to defend their rights and exist without the right of suffrage. 2. he insists on thrift and self - respect, but at the same time counsels a silent submission to civic inferiority such as is bound to sap the manhood of any race in the long run. 3. he advocates common - school and industrial training, and depreciates institutions of higher learning; but neither the negro common - schools, nor tuskegee itself, could remain open a day were it not for teachers trained in negro colleges, or trained by their graduates. —the souls of black folk, w. e. b. du bois which statement best explains the validity of this argument? ○ the argument is valid because du bois refers to washington by name. ○ the argument is valid because du bois gives relevant reasons to support his claim. ○ the argument is not valid because du bois does not make a claim. ○ the argument is not valid because du bois does not give reasons to support his claim.

Question

Accepted Answer

# Brief Explanations:
To determine the validity of the argument, we analyze each option:
- Option 1: Referring to Washington by name doesn't make an argument valid. Validity requires logical support, not just naming. Eliminate.
- Option 2: The passage shows Du Bois provides reasons (the three paradoxes) to support his claim about Washington's career. So saying he gives relevant reasons to support his claim would mean the argument is valid? Wait, no—wait, the question is about the validity of the argument (Du Bois's argument about Washington's triple paradox). Wait, no, the options are about why the argument is valid or not. Wait, let's re - examine:
The first option says validity is because of naming—incorrect. The second option says valid because he gives relevant reasons—let's check the passage. Du Bois presents three paradoxes (reasons) to support his claim about Washington's career. But wait, the third and fourth options say the argument is not valid. Wait, no, let's re - evaluate the options:
- Option 3: Says the argument is not valid because Du Bois does not make a claim. But Du Bois does make a claim (about Washington's triple paradox). Eliminate.
- Option 4: Says the argument is not valid because Du Bois does not give reasons to support his claim. But Du Bois does give reasons (the three paradoxes: 1. Making artisans business - men/property - owners but impossible without suffrage; 2. Thrift/self - respect but silent submission to civic inferiority; 3. Advocating common - school/industrial training but needing higher - learning - trained teachers). Wait, no—wait, maybe I misread. Wait, the question is "Which statement best explains the validity of this argument?" Wait, maybe the options are misinterpreted. Wait, let's re - look:
Wait, the passage is Du Bois's argument about Washington's career having a triple paradox. Now, to determine the validity of an argument, we need to see if the conclusion (claim) is supported by premises (reasons).
- Option 1: Referring by name doesn't affect validity. Eliminate.
- Option 2: If Du Bois gives relevant reasons (the three paradoxes are reasons to support his claim about Washington's career's paradox), then the argument would be valid. But wait, the other options say it's not valid. Wait, maybe I made a mistake. Wait, let's check the options again:
Wait, the third option: "The argument is not valid because Du Bois does not make a claim." But Du Bois does make a claim (that Washington faces a triple paradox). Eliminate.
Wait, the fourth option: "The argument is not valid because Du Bois does not give reasons to support his claim." But Du Bois does give reasons (the three numbered points are reasons). So this is incorrect. Wait, now I'm confused. Wait, maybe the question is about the argument's validity in terms of logical structure. Wait, no—maybe the options are misphrased. Wait, let's re - read the options:
Wait, the first option: "The argument is valid because Du Bois refers to Washington by name." No, naming doesn't make an argument valid.
Second option: "The argument is valid because Du Bois gives relevant reasons to support his claim." The three paradoxes are reasons (premises) to support his claim (conclusion) about Washington's career. So if he gives relevant reasons, the argument is valid. But wait, the other options say it's not valid. Wait, maybe the question is about a different argument? Wait, no—the passage is Du Bois's argument. Wait, maybe I messed up. Wait, let's check the options again. Wait, maybe the correct answer is the fourth option? No, because Du Bois does give reasons. Wait, I think I made a mistake. Wait, let's start over.
To determine the validity of an argument, we need to assess if the premises (reasons) logically support the conclusion (claim).
- Option 1: Invalid reasoning for validity (naming ≠ validity).
- Option 2: If Du Bois gives relevant reasons (the three paradoxes are reasons to support his claim about Washington's career), then the argument is valid. But wait, the other options say it's not valid. Wait, maybe the question is about the argument being invalid. Wait, no—the options have two valid and two invalid. Wait, maybe the correct answer is the fourth option? No, because Du Bois does give reasons. Wait, I think I made a mistake in understanding the options. Wait, let's check the original problem again.
Wait, the question is "Which statement best explains the validity of this argument?" Let's analyze each option:
1. "The argument is valid because Du Bois refers to Washington by name." - Incorrect. Referring by name does not establish the validity of an argument. Validity is about the logical relationship between premises and conclusion, not about naming the subject.
2. "The argument is valid because Du Bois gives relevant reasons to support his claim." - The three points (the triple paradox) are reasons (premises) that support Du Bois's claim (conclusion) about Washington's career. So if he provides relevant reasons, the argument is valid. But wait, the other options say it's not valid. Wait, maybe the question is misprinted, or I'm misinterpreting. Wait, maybe the correct answer is the fourth option? No, because Du Bois does give reasons. Wait, I think I made a mistake. Wait, let's check the options again. Wait, the third option says the argument is not valid because Du Bois does not make a claim. But he does make a claim (about Washington's triple paradox). So eliminate. The fourth option says the argument is not valid because he does not give reasons. But he does give reasons (the three paradoxes). So this is incorrect. Then the only remaining valid - seeming option is the second one? But that seems contradictory. Wait, maybe the question is about the argument being invalid, and I misread. Wait, no—let's check the passage again. The passage is Du Bois presenting the triple paradox of Washington's career. So he has a claim (Washington's career has a triple paradox) and gives three reasons (the three numbered points) to support it. So the argument is valid because he gives relevant reasons (the three paradoxes) to support his claim. So the correct option is the second one? Wait, no—the options are:
- Option 1: Invalid reason for validity.
- Option 2: Valid because he gives relevant reasons.
- Option 3: Invalid (he does make a claim).
- Option 4: Invalid (he does give reasons).
So the correct answer should be the second option? But that seems odd. Wait, maybe I made a mistake. Wait, let's check the options again. Wait, the second option says "The argument is valid because Du Bois gives relevant reasons to support his claim." Yes, because the three paradoxes are reasons (premises) that support his claim (conclusion) about Washington's career. So the argument is valid because it has supporting reasons.
# Answer:
B. The argument is valid because Du Bois gives relevant reasons to support his claim.

Sovi.AI - AI Math Tutor

QUESTION IMAGE

Question

Explanation:

Answer: