Need help with Logic, deductive and inductive arguments

Provide an example of a reasonably cogent argument for some claim. What further information would undermine the argument (without counting against any of the premises)?

Provide an example of a reasonably cogent argument for some claim. What further information would undermine the argument (without counting against any of the premises)?

please translate this in english or ebonics someone

Provide an example of a reasonably cogent argument for some claim. What further information would undermine the argument (without counting against any of the premises)?

please translate this in english or ebonics someone

Give an example of an argument that's believable. "For some claim" Would be the topic you're arguing. The second part would basically be points that whoever you're arguing to would be able to bring up to dispute it or could be information you choose to leave out that could hurt your argument, but won't have any real significant place if you're pro-whatever you're arguing about.

Ex: Arguing that Obama is a good president, but undermining the fact that he increased the U.S. debts in his 4 years. Does that take away from him being a good president? No, but it's not something you would want to brag about.

Hope I helped and wasn't to broad or vague.

Provide an example of a reasonably cogent argument for some claim. What further information would undermine the argument (without counting against any of the premises)?

please translate this in english or ebonics someone

Give an example of an argument that's believable. "For some claim" Would be the topic you're arguing. The second part would basically be points that whoever you're arguing to would be able to bring up to dispute it or could be information you choose to leave out that could hurt your argument, but won't have any real significant place if you're pro-whatever you're arguing about.

Ex: Arguing that Obama is a good president, but undermining the fact that he increased the U.S. debts in his 4 years. Does that take away from him being a good president? No, but it's not something you would want to brag about.

Hope I helped and wasn't to broad or vague.

okay I see that makes sense. Have you taken his before? seems like you got it on lock

Only in Intro Logic, so #1 is a bit over my head.. But I'll have a go at the second..

It's impossible to dictate the point at which the non-heap of sand would become a heap, for it's all very much relative. Nothing constitutes a 'heap'; there is no turning point, it is just a matter of opinion. This is a famous paradox (as noted) for this very reason.. that there is no real answer, it's just an interesting thinking point. However, if you were to disagree with the reasoning, you could go about it in the following way:
If this is the basic argument presented by the paradox..

Premise #1: X grain(s) of sand is not a heap
Premise #2: X+1 grain(s) of sand is not a heap
Conclusion: X+1...z grain(s) of sand is not a heap

I would go about disagreeing with the validity of the argument by claiming Premise #1 to be false, and justify my reasoning that it is false by claiming that there simply is no such thing as heap (for reasons I explained above). It would then follow that the rest of the argument is invalid, and now you can stop losing sleep over it. Granted, you could also disagree with Premise #2, and claim that there exists a boundary where it becomes a heap and that the boundary is simply unknowable.. Whatever floats your boat.