The argument from common sense asserts that our everyday experiences provide sufficient evidence for the existence of an external world and our ability to know things about it.

The argument from common sense relies on the idea that our everyday experiences, such as seeing, touching, and hearing, provide reliable evidence for the existence of an external world and our ability to know things about it.

All of the given examples are instances of the argument from common sense against skepticism. They rely on our everyday experiences to provide evidence for the existence of an external world and our ability to know things about it.

All of the given options are valid objections to the argument from common sense against skepticism. Skeptics argue that our everyday experiences can be misleading, that skepticism is a valid philosophical position, and that the existence of an external world and our ability to know things about it cannot be proven with certainty.

The argument from coherence, the argument from pragmatism, and the argument from evolution are all common arguments against skepticism. They each provide different reasons for rejecting skeptical claims about the impossibility of knowledge.

The argument from coherence asserts that our beliefs and experiences form a coherent system that supports the existence of an external world and our ability to know things about it. Skepticism, on the other hand, claims that our beliefs and experiences are unreliable and cannot provide a foundation for knowledge.

All of the given examples are instances of the argument from coherence against skepticism. They show how our beliefs and experiences form a coherent system that supports the existence of an external world and our ability to know things about it.

All of the given options are valid objections to the argument from coherence against skepticism. Skeptics argue that our beliefs and experiences can be inconsistent and contradictory, that skepticism is a valid philosophical position, and that the existence of an external world and our ability to know things about it cannot be proven with certainty.

The argument from pragmatism, the argument from evolution, and the argument from morality are all common arguments against skepticism. They each provide different reasons for rejecting skeptical claims about the impossibility of knowledge.

The argument from pragmatism asserts that skepticism is impractical and leads to negative consequences in our lives. It argues that if we were to adopt a skeptical attitude towards everything, we would be unable to function effectively in the world and would be unable to achieve our goals.

All of the given examples are instances of the argument from pragmatism against skepticism. They show how skepticism can lead to negative consequences in our lives and undermine our ability to function effectively in the world.

All of the given options are valid objections to the argument from pragmatism against skepticism. Skeptics argue that skepticism is not necessarily impractical, that it can lead to positive consequences in our lives, that skepticism is a valid philosophical position, and that the existence of an external world and our ability to know things about it cannot be proven with certainty.

The argument from evolution, the argument from morality, and the argument from religion are all common arguments against skepticism. They each provide different reasons for rejecting skeptical claims about the impossibility of knowledge.

The argument from evolution asserts that our cognitive abilities have evolved to help us survive and reproduce in the world. It argues that if our cognitive abilities were unreliable, we would not have been able to survive and reproduce, and therefore skepticism is false.

All of the given examples are instances of the argument from evolution against skepticism. They show how our cognitive abilities have evolved to help us survive and reproduce in the world, and therefore skepticism is false.