1.Premise 1: The truth about human knowledge is known through skepticism.
Premise 2: Skepticism indicates that we cannot know true knowledge.
Conclusion: We may as well give up the search.
Explanation: This argument has two incompatible premises. The first premise claims that the truth about human knowledge lies in the position of skepticism, which means that we can know true human knowledge. The second premise claims that the view of skepticism is that there is no way that we can know anything to be true, which contradicts with the first premise. So the conclusion that “we may as well give up the search” cannot be drawn out.
2. Premise 1: No one would say, “I am wrong and you are right about marijuana”.
Premise 2: Each individual needs to determine what is right and I don’t see anything unethical.
Conclusion: You are right about smoking marijuana.
Explanation: Premise and conclusion contradicts between themselves. The first premise claims that no one will consider smoking marijuana as morally right, but the conclusion claims that “you are right about smoking marijuana”, which is inconsistent with the first premise. So this is not a good argument.
