pointing out how a problem is widely thought to be scientific yet is really conceptual constructing a counterexample to a general hypothesis about the future attempting to show that predicting any event implies that it has in fact already taken place appealing to definitions to infer the impossibility of a kind of occurrence
To predict that a device will be invented, one must develop a conception of the device that includes some details at least about how it will function and the consequences of its use. But clearly, then, the notion of predicting an invention is self-contradictory, for inventing means developing a detailed conception, and one cannot predict what has already taken place.
Which one of the following most accurately describes the technique of reasoning employed by the argument?