Answer

Dim Sum.

The rubble has been searched by humans, trained dogs and radar devices.
(This is the kind of search that would turn up any survivors.)
(We should only mount a massive search if there was a realistic possibility of finding more survivors.)
We should not mount a massive search.

Satay.

(Apart from Dim Sum's argument,) there is no absolute proof that there are absolutely no survivors.
It is (just barely) possible for a survivor to be trapped in such a way as to be missed by the previous search.
We should mount a massive search.

Satay gives no reason why Dim Sum should bear the burden of proof, she doesn't directly address any of Dim Sum's premises, so hers is an opposing argument.

Satay's argument imposes an irrational proof standard on Dim Sum by implying that an exhaustive search of the rubble is not enough to eliminate any realistic hope of finding survivors. While it is true that most search teams are willing to keep working as long as there is a real possibility of finding any survivors, they are not obligated to do so when the real possibility of finding survivors has been eliminated

Use your browser's "back" key to return to your place in the reading.

---

This Site is Proudly Hosted By: