The argument is flawed because it assumes that the emotional impact of art is solely derived from its color palette. While some of Jamie's paintings may not contain blue, they could still evoke feelings of sadness or melancholy through other elements, such as composition, subject matter, or emotional context. Thus, the presence of blue is not a prerequisite for the emotional response described.
In an argument based on mathematics the conclusion is claimed to depend largely and entirely on some mathematical calculation or measurement.
No experts have claimed this.
Having customers pay for something and delivering a product that it not entirely what you claimed it would be. It may be entirely legal, but it may not be ethical.
Having customers pay for something and delivering a product that it not entirely what you claimed it would be. It may be entirely legal, but it may not be ethical.
he claimed that the Framers were rich people who wrote the Constitution to benefit themselves
Robert Hooke famously had an argument with Isaac Newton over Newton's theory of gravitation. Hooke claimed that Newton's ideas were similar to his own, leading to a dispute between the two scientists.
It depends on the 'mistake' you made. If you have claimed to be 51 when you are 50 years of age then they would probably accept that. If you have claimed to be 18 when you are 16 that is a different matter entirely.
The simple answer is that no matter what he may have claimed to be, he clearly was not a Christian by any reasonable definition of the term.
She cannot answer this question any more. What makes a painting surrealistic can be a matter of opinion.
Opinions vary. It was originally claimed that he made over 700 paintings, but the Rembrandt Research Project reduced this number to around 250. Museums often claim the higher figure. The debate about the authenticity of some of his works continues, and the attribution of many may never be settled. He also produced approximately 300 etchings, and 1400 drawings.
A valid argument is one in which the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion. An invalid argument is one in which the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. In invalid arguments, the conclusion does not follow with strict necessity from the premises, even though it is claimed to.
Otis Amber and Crow were having an argument because Crow accused Otis of sneaking around and eavesdropping on conversations. Otis denied the accusation and claimed he was merely passing by. The argument escalated due to their stubborn personalities and refusal to listen to each other.