A1 Explain what philosophers mean by an "argument "...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 9 pages.

PHI 107 Theories of Knowledge & Reality Midterm Review Fall 2019 Midterm Exam : Tuesday, October 15, 11:00 -11:55AM in 107 HL. Review Session : Sunday, Oct. 13, 4:00Pm – 5:30PM, 207 HL. Exam Format : As announced, the exam will have six (6) short essay questions of which you will need to answer four (4) – your choice. Questions will be drawn from the weekly review question – full list below. Exam questions may combine parts from more than one review question. Exam Rules : Exam is 100% closed book . Phones and all electronic devices must be turned off and stored out of sight. All materials and papers must be stored and out of sight – in a backpack or similar container. If no pack, then materials must be left at front of room. Having any materials or any electronics out and visible during the exam will constitute cheating on the exam and will lead to an F in the course. Complete set of Review Questions . A1. Explain what philosophers mean by an "argument ". What are the principal parts of an argument and how are they supposed to be related ? Explain what is meant by a multi-stage argument . Give an example of one. A2. Explain/define what a valid deductive argument is. Explain/define what a sound deductive argument is. Give an example of a sound argument. Give an example of an argument that is valid but unsound A3.Must a valid argument have a true conclusion ? Why or why not? Must a sound argument have a true conclusion ? Why or why not? Can an argument have all true premises as well as a true conclusion and be invalid ? Why or why not? A4. Explain how inductive and deductive arguments differ. What sort of claim does each type of argument make? And how do those two sorts of claims differ? Give an example of an argument that is deductively invalid, but is nonetheless a good (strong) inductive argument. A5. In the "Value of Philosophy" Bertrand Russell gives 2 main reasons to study philosophy, i.e. he describes two ways in which doing so has value . Explain those two reasons. i.e. those two ways he says it has value. .
1. Explain the difference between Apriori and Aposteriori propositions. Give an example of each, being clear to say which is which, and why. 2. Give a statement of the Ontological Argument for God's Existence in explicit numbered premise/conclusion format. It need not be word-for-word as given in lecture or text - it is perfectly OK to paraphrase it in your own words, but it should include all the needed steps. 3. Explain what a Reduction Ad Absurdum (RAA ) argument is. Explain how the Ontological argument counts (RAA) argument. (You don't have to state the full Ontological Argument, just explain how its basic structure is an RAA.) 4. Explain how a critic might challenge premise 1 of the Ontological Argument by questioning the coherence of the idea of God . Be sure to explain the idea of God and what specific aspects of that idea might be open to challenge as incoherent (or inconsistent). (If you want, you can use the "largest integer" example as an analogy, but if you do, be sure to explain it.) 5. Explain how a critic might object to premise 5 of the Ontological Argument by

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture