One premise of John Locke’s arguments is there is not enough proof for the theory of general assent.

True
False

True

Explanation:

Locke’s epistemology is built around a strict distinction between knowledge and mere probable opinion or belief. Locke appears to define knowledge, however, so as to rule out the possibility of knowledge of the external world. Locke himself, however, emphasizes that knowledge of the external world is neither based on inference or reasoning nor is it based on reflecting on ideas somehow already in the mind. Instead, it is achieved through sensory experience. Thus, knowledge of the external world, even as Locke himself describes it, is clearly not a matter of merely knowing facts about our own minds.

thats harsh

explanation:

are there answer choices to this particular question?