Fallacy test answer guide 06

Fallacy test answer guide 06 - MODES OF REASONING Fallacy...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
MODES OF REASONING Fallacy Test Answer Guide Marking Scheme: 25 marks per question, as follows: Conclusion: 5 marks Premises: 5 marks Fallacy: 3 marks Definition: 2 marks Application: 5 marks Challenge: 5 marks 1. News page 30, Vigilantes Guilty of Arson: P1: The four New Brunswick men were defending themselves and their community by burning down the house of a suspected drug dealer. P2: Anyone who acts in self-defense is innocent. (implied) C: The four New Brunswick men are innocent. Fallacy: Equivocation Definition: The meaning of a key term shifts throughout the argument. Application: The meaning of self-defense shifts from premise one to premise two. In premise two, self-defense is a legal term which refers to defending oneself from an imminent attack on one’s person. In premise one, self- defense (or “defending themselves”) refers to removing a potential long- term threat to the welfare of oneself and one’s community. Challenge: Although this argument appears to be sound, it cannot have both true premises and a valid pattern at the same time. If we define the term self- defense in the way it is used in premise one, then premise two is false. If we define the term in the way it is used in premise two, then premise one is false. If we use a different meaning for each premise, we are no longer talking about the same thing and so the conclusion does not follow. Notes: Not begging the question. The claim that the four men acted in self-defense does not mean the same thing as the claim that they are innocent; rather, it is a reason for believing they are innocent. 2. Comment page 8, letter from Kathy Laird:
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
P1: Bill 107 is based on the recommendations of numerous provincial and federal reports that have studied our Canadian human rights system for the last 20 years, including the Cornish Report commissioned by the former NDP government and the LaForest Report prepared by the Hon. Judge LaForest of the Supreme Court of Canada. P2:
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/07/2011 for the course MODR 1760 taught by Professor Camelacircelli during the Spring '11 term at York University.

Page1 / 4

Fallacy test answer guide 06 - MODES OF REASONING Fallacy...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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