Untitled Document

Part A: Multiple Choice (20%)
Part B: Short Answers (30%)
Part C: Argument Analysis (50%)

Part A: 10 multiple choice [20%]
Clearly indicate exactly one answer by marking an X through the letter which precedes it. Each is worth 2 marks.

1. Which of the following are conditions for proper appeal to authority?
(a) the claim must be known for certain
(b) all other experts must agree with the expert cited
(c) the claim must fall within the expert’s field of expertise
(d) all of the above

2. Circular arguments:
(a) include the conclusion as a premise, usually stated in slightly different terms
(b) include at least one irrelevant premise
(c) are either vague or ambiguous
(d) typically involve hasty inductive generalizations

3. Inductive reasoning in general:
(a) cannot guarantee any conclusion for certain
(b) only applies in law and science
(c) is unreliable
(d) is not as useful as deductive reasoning

4. Mill’s methods are intended for:
(a) detecting the post hoc fallacy
(b) distinguishing correlation from causation
(c) ensuring a representative sample
(d) all of the above

5. If a syllogism is invalid then:
(a) its conclusion is false
(b) its premises do not formally entail its conclusion
(c) it begs the question
(d) it commits the fallacy of false dichotomy

6. A faulty analogy:
(a) commits the fallacy of slippery precedent
(b) provides virtually no support for the conclusion
(c) can be made cogent with a proper appeal to authority
(d) can only occur in the case of an inductive analogy

7. Conductive arguments:
(a) consist of convergent premises
(b) claim that, on balance, the reasons in favor of the conclusion outweigh the reasons against it
(c) are applicable when there is no way to quantitatively measure competing considerations
(d) all of the above

8. A fallacy is:
(a) a misleading use of language
(b) an argument with an implicit premise
(c) an argument based on a common mistake in reasoning
(d) something that is too vague to precisely evaluate

9. Which of the following is true?
(a) if a premise is acceptable, then it is true a priori
(b) if a premise is true a priori, then it is acceptable
(c) if a premise is unacceptable, then it is false
(d) none of the above

10. Which of the following is false?
(a) a causal inductive argument might involve either an inductive analogy or an inductive generalization
(b) inductive analogies are also typically inductive generalizations
(c) all inductive arguments are based on the assumption that the regularities described in the premises will persist
(d) none of the above

Part B: 4 definitions and short answers [30%]
Stop and think after reading each question. Each can be answered completely with a few concise, focused, well-planned sentences.

1. [6%] Under what conditions is the arguer’s character genuinely relevant to evaluating an argument?

2. [8%] What is the difference between a persuasive and an operational definition? Give an example of each. Could one definition be an instance of both?

3. [8%] What, in general, is the relation between consistency and rationality? Are there any dangers associated with putting too much stress on consistency?

4. [8%] You have just been elected to parliament. Congratulations. Your main campaign promise, which was a major factor in your victory, was to lobby for big increases in health-care spending. So now you have to stand up in the House of Commons and make an argument. What kind of argument (or arguments) would you use (e.g., deductive, inductive, etc.) and why?

Part C: argument analysis [50%]
1. [10%] Translate the following argument into categorical form, and test it for validity using a Venn diagram.

Some politicians are socialists, and any socialist believes that equality is a more fundamental value than freedom. So, there are politicians who believe that equality trumps freedom.

2. [10%] Translate the following argument into propositional logic, and test it for validity using a truth table .

Either the Liberals or the Conservatives will win the next election, and it won't be the Liberals. So the Conservatives will win.

Unless you are a very unusual person, chances are you do not have enough food in your home to feed you for a month. Does that mean we should start reading the obituaries in a month to find out if you have starved to death?

No. And why? Chances are you are going to stop by the supermarket before then and buy more chow. The same common sense reasoning applies to all of the things we are supposedly ‘running out’ of.

The known petroleum reserves are enough to last in the neighborhood of 15 years. Does that mean that our gas tanks are going to be dry 16 years from now? No. And why? Because the oil companies are going to drill more wells by then and discover more oil.

•There is no point in giving money to charity, even if it makes you feel better.. Some charitable organizations waste it. Besides, when people are really needy, governments should support them and not rely on charity to do it. Furthermore, the advertisements put out by these charities are so emotional that they are positively manipulative.

Ch's 7 & 8 are the only ones in the text that we will not cover in their entirity. Here is all that you need to know from these Ch's:

•Ch 7: Categorical logic

•We will cover only pp.178-89, 195-204

•

•Ch 8: Propositional logic

•We will cover pp. 216-43

•

•What you need to know for Test #2 and Exam:

•Ch 7: How do you test for validity within categorical logic?

•(i.e., Venn diagrams)

•Ch 8: How can we test for validity within propositional logic?

•(i.e., truth tables)