Inherent Barriers. Jason is judging a court case in a remote corner Texas. The plaintiff (or accuser) argued that the defendant wrongly stole his pet squirrel. The defendant responds by arguing that the following inherent barriers prevented her from returning the squirrel: • First, the bursting squirrel population from the past five years clearly shows that there is no shortage of squirrels near their home – and that if the plaintiff had wanted a new squirrel, he could have easily acquired one. • Second, most of the squirrels like the defendant more. If squirrels were not generally drawn to the plaintiff, then it must mean that they were disposed to dislike or distrust him. • Finally, it is not clear which squirrel the plaintiff was referring to. If the defendant kept the squirrel in an open yard (which they did), then the squirrel did not fail to return home because of obstacles created by the defendant. Now, answer the following questions:
• What kind of inherency is being used in each case?
• As the negative in this debate, does the defendant help or harm their own case by arguing inherency? Justify your response.