Is the following statement a good definition? Why? A cat is an animal with whiskers. It is, because all cats have whiskers. It is. The statement is precise and reversible. It is not. The statement is not precise. It is not. The statement is not reversible.
The statement "A cat is an animal with whiskers" is not a good definition because it is not precise. While it is true that cats typically have whiskers, there are other animals besides cats that also have whiskers (e.g. some dogs, seals, etc.). Therefore, the statement does not accurately define what a cat is, making it imprecise. However, if the statement was modified to say "A cat is a furry mammal with whiskers," it would be more accurate and precise.
The statement "A cat is an animal with whiskers" is a good definition because it is both precise and reversible. It clearly states that a cat is an animal with whiskers, which is an accurate and specific characteristic of cats. Additionally, the definition is reversible because it can also be stated as "An animal with whiskers is a cat," which maintains the same meaning.
The first statement, "A cat is an animal with whiskers," can be considered a good definition of a cat. This is because all cats do indeed have whiskers, which makes it a precise characteristic that distinguishes cats from other animals. Additionally, the statement is reversible, meaning that if an animal has whiskers, it can be classified as a cat.
Therefore, the correct response would be: "It is, because all cats have whiskers."