This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: For 5 points extra credit on your ﬁnal exam, you must turn in answers to all of the questions below, no later than Monday,
November 30, 2009. When can a premise be assumed as true?
What is an uncontroversial empirical statement?
What is an uncontroversial deﬁnition?
When can we accept statements by experts as premises? Be able to identify all types of compound statements (provide an example of each)
Negations Disjunctions (Inclusive and Exclusive)
Conjunctions Conditionals Be able to calculate the following descriptive statistics
How do you calculate a Mean, Truncated mean, median, mode?
How do you Identify an outlier? Statistical Arguments
What type of argument is it (deductive or inductive)?
identify sampling techniques (list the types and‘their deﬁnitions)
what is the standard form of a statistical argument?
identify the sample, the target, the relevant property and the N (Deﬁne each)
what two criteria give a statistical argument good form? Moral Arguments
Two Types of Deontological arguments : Universalist, cooperative
Two Types of Consequentialist arguments : Maximizing and non-maximizing
Aretaic arguments: About person instead of act Be able to identify and evaluate the form of all of the Deductive Syllogisms, (Please list the proper form for each type, and if it
passes or fails the good form test. If it had all true premises, would the argument be sound or unsound?) Afﬁrming the consequent Afﬁrming the antecedent
Denying the antecedent Denying the consequent Denying the Disjunctive Afﬁrming an Exclusive Disjunction
Afﬁrming an Inclusive Disjunction Tri-Conditional Causal Arguments
Why is correlation alone not sufﬁcient to prove causation?
Deﬁne each, and provide an example) of necessary cause, sufﬁcient cause, necessary and sufﬁcient cause, or contributory
what gives a causal argument good form? What are some common causal fallacies? Analogical Arguments
what is the standard form of an analogical argument?
deﬁne primary subject, analogue, similarities, and conclusory feature
What gives an analogical argument good form?
How do we evaluate premises in an analogical argument with nonempirical premises? b DANOTHER HINT: Turn in a typed draft of your second essay to your instructor by Halloween. 4 4 Analogical
(Ch 8) Form: Pr.l -X l s have
features Fl. F2,
F3... & Fn
features Fl, F2.
F3 . .. C-XZS probably
have in 6 general kinds:
1, Temporal 2. Environmental
3. Standard 4. Logical 5. Classiﬁcation
Treatment Weak (Bad form) Not
(At least 1
Prs) Remember when evaluating inductive
arguments, there are different criteria for
each type of argument listed above, I. GFT (by degrees) Statistical (Ch 9) Form: (Ch 10) Pr.l-N% of Form (short): an observed Pnl- E1 is subset of the correlated entities in G with E2 have F Pr.2«E2 is C—N% of all not the cause the entities of E1 in G have F Pr.3-There is
no E3 that is
the cause of
El and E2
Pr.4- El &
E2 are not
C—El is a
cause of E2 Evaluating
(2tests) Strong (Good form) \AlgUIIlClllb 21H; 'dllclllpl: lU UUIIVIHUC Llle 'dlc UUIIIpUbCU Ul blutUlIlClID lpIClllleb 0L UUIIUIUDIUHB]. DlalClllCllLb
are true or false, but not both. They cannot be true in one situation or in one person’s opinion or culture and
false in another situatiOn or in another person’s opinion or culture. Note: there are philosophical arguments
against this view. but since this is an introductory class we will assume this is the case. If this interests you take an upper level philoso Moral (Ch. 1 l) 2 general forms:
Pr.l-P1’s doing Al has feature F Pr.2-Its morally good/bad to do actions that have
feature F C-Pl ought/ought not to do A] 2. (Person) Pr.l-Pl has feature F Pr.2-Its morally good/bad for a person to have
feature F C-Pl is a good/bad person 3 theories: 1. Consequentialist General Eoim: Prl- Pls doing AI will produce Cl Pr.2- Its morally good/ bad to produce Cl
C- Pl ought/ ought not to do A1 3 different consequences: I. What type of Consequences? (Answer: Intrinsic Consequences) Pr.l- Pls doing AI will produce happiness (Le. any
important intrinsic feature, such as pleasure, desire satisfaction, and! or talent development) Pr.2- Its morally good to produce happiness (ie,
any important intrinsic feature, such as pleasure.
desire satisfaction, and/ or talent development)
C- P1 ought to do Al I]. Who is morally important? Universalists: Pr. 1- P15 doing AI will produce happiness for
everyone in the world Pr.2- Its morally good to produce happiness for
everyone in the world 0 Pl ought to do Al III. Correct amount of consequences?
Maximizing Consequentalists. Pr, 1- P15 doing AI will maximize happiness for
everyone in the world Pr. 2- Its morally good to maximize happiness for everyone in the world
C- Pl ought to do A1 2. Deontological
Pr.l- Pls doing Al has intrinsic feature F1 Pr, 2- Its morally good/ bad to do actions with
intrinsic feature Fl C-Pl ought] ought not to do Al What sorts of Intrinsic features? I. Universability (Kant‘s Categorical Imperative)
Pr, 1- (1) Pl ‘5 doing Al is not universalizable.
Pr. 2- It is morally bad to do actions that are not
universalizable. C- P} ought not do Al ll. Cooperation Pr.1- Pls doing Al is uncooperative P12» Its morally bad to do actions that are not
cooperative C- Pl ought not to do A! 3. Arctic
1, Traditional Form Pr.l~ P1 does good actions. Pr. 2- Pl has motives that lead to good actions.
Tf, Pr.3- P I has good motives C- P1 is a good person 1!. Virtue Ethics Form Pr. 1- Pl ’3 doing Al is an action that would be done by a person with virtue V Pr. 2- It is morally good to do actions that would be done by a person with virtue V.
C- Pl ought to do A1. class such as Phil. 2010) Deductive l. Afﬁrmining an Exclusive
Disjunct Pr,l- S] or S2 & Not Both
Pr.2-Sl C—Nor 52 OR Pr.l—SI or $2 & Not Both
Pr.2—SZ C-th Sl 2. Denying a Disjunct
Pr.l-Sl or 52
Prl—Not SI C~SZ OR
Pr. le1 or 82
Pr.2-Not 52 C- 51 3. Denying the Consequent (Modus
Tollens) Pr.l-lfSl, then 52 Pr.2—Not $2 C~Not SI 4. Afﬁrming the Antecedent
(Modus Poncns) Pr.l-IfSl, then 52 Pr.2-Sl C-SZ Evaluating
(Bad form) l. Affirmining an
Pr. 1 - Sl or 52
Pr.2-Sl C-Not 52 OR
Pr.1-Sl or 32
Pr.2-S2 C—Not SI 2. Denying the
Pr.1-lfSl , then S).
Pr.2-Not Sl C-Not 52 3. Afﬁrming the
Pr.1-IfSl. then 52
Pr.2-S2 C-Sl 5. Tri-ConditiOnal
Pr.l-IfSl, then SZ
Pr.2-If 52. then 53
C~lfSl, then 53 Unsound
(At least 1
View Full Document
- Spring '08