Step 1: Identifying Quine’s target in Two Dogmas.
Quine famously criticizes two central assumptions of logical empiricism: the analytic–synthetic distinction and reductionism.
Step 2: Evaluating option (A).
Quine rejects the distinction between analytic truths (true by meaning) and synthetic truths (true by fact), arguing that no clear boundary exists.
Step 3: Evaluating option (B).
He also rejects reductionism—the idea that each meaningful statement can be translated into statements about immediate experience.
Step 4: Evaluating option (C).
Quine denies that truths grounded purely in meaning can be neatly separated from empirical truths, since our statements face experience as a holistic web of belief.
Step 5: Eliminating option (D).
Option (D) actually reflects Quine’s own position and therefore is not rejected by him.
Step 6: Conclusion.
Thus, Quine rejects statements (A), (B), and (C).
Final Answer: (A), (B), and (C)