7be - COURSES > CRITICAL THINKING FALL 2006 ONLINE > TOOLS...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
COURSES > CRITICAL THINKING FALL 2006 ONLINE > TOOLS > MY GRADES > REVIEW ASSESSMENT: MOD7BE Review Assessment: Mod7bE Name: Mod7bE Status : Completed Score: 88 out of 100 points Time Elapsed: 1 hours, 19 minutes, and 39 seconds out of 1 hours and 30 minutes allowed. Instructions: Question 1 0 of 4 points Restate the following syllogism in standard form and determine whether the syllogism is valid. Since only some chemists are physicists, and not any theologians are physicists, we may conclude that at least one theologian is not a chemist. Selected Answer: Some chemists are not physics. No theologians are physicists. Some theologians are not chemists. Invalid. Correct Answer: Some chemists are physicists. No theologians are physicists. Some theologians are not chemists. Valid Feedback: Why is it valid? Question 2 4 of 4 points What conclusion, if any, follows from the following set of premises? Some pterodactyls are monsters.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Some stegosauri are monsters. So, ??? Selected Answer: No conclusion follows: Correct Answer: No conclusion follows: Feedback: Yes!!! Question 3 4 of 4 points Restate the following syllogism in standard form and determine whether the syllogism is valid. Not all musicians are college professors, so not everyone who skates on ice is a college teacher, for at least one ice skater is not a person who sings or plays a musical instrument.
Background image of page 2
Selected Answer: Some musicians are not professors. Some ice skaters are not musicians. Some ice skaters are not professors. Invalid. Correct Answer: Some musicians are not professors. Some ice skaters are not musicians. Some ice skaters are not professors. Invalid. Feedback: Very good!!! Question 4 4 of 4 points What additional premise, if any, yields a valid syllogism? If no premise yields a valid categorical syllogism, explain why not. Some M are P. Some S are P. Selected Answer: All M are S. Correct Answer: All M are S. Feedback: Right! Question 5 4 of 4 points Restate the following syllogism in standard form and determine whether the syllogism is valid. Since houses made of paper are all flammable things, and no inflammable things have low insurance rates, we may conclude that the insurance rates on paper houses are high.
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Selected Answer: No flammable things are things having low insurance rates . All paper houses are flammable things.
Background image of page 4
Image of page 5
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This test prep was uploaded on 04/09/2008 for the course GPHIL 120 taught by Professor Danielflage during the Spring '07 term at James Madison University.

Page1 / 15

7be - COURSES > CRITICAL THINKING FALL 2006 ONLINE > TOOLS...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 5. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online