{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

3 c x is not free of bias this is the arguer’s

Info iconThis preview shows pages 11–13. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 3. c) X is not free of bias . This is the arguer’s mother, after all, and mothers, whether they love their children or can’t stand them, are rarely unbiased in evaluating them. See p. 309. Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Fifth Edition © Oxford University Press Canada, 2012 Passage 7 1. b) Ad populum . Ad populum proceeds as follows: It is popularly held that y; this is a context in which popular opinion is knowledgeable, trustworthy, and free of bias; therefore, y should be accepted. See pp. 308, 310–311, 312–314, 318–319, 324, 326–327. 2. b) This is a context in which popular opinion is knowledgeable, trustworthy, and free of bias . The arguer seems to assume the reliability of popular opinion, which is usually a serious mistake in ad populum arguments. See p. 311. 3. c) Popular opinion is not free of bias . In particular, the possibility of confirmation bias has to be considered here. Since most people expect popcorn to be an innocuous snack, there may be a tendency to dismiss or overlook evidence that shows popcorn is dangerous. For example, popcorn kernels are a choking hazard for infants or those with swallowing difficulties. A counter-argument could begin by noting the possibility of this sort of bias and demonstrating how it could lead to the same conclusion. See p. 311. Passage 8 1. c) Appeal to authority . Appeal to authority proceeds as follows: X is an authority with credentials, c , who believes and states y; credentials c are relevant to y; X is not biased; There is wide agreement among the relevant experts over y; y is an appropriate field in which consensus is possible; therefore, y should be accepted. See pp. 308, 310–311, 312–314, 318– 319, 324, 326–327. 2. e) The premise that y is an appropriate field in which consensus is possible . It is notoriously difficult to get agreement on moral issues. Many people feel strongly about moral issues and have deep commitments to their positions. It therefore seems that the weakness here is the claim that it is even possible to get consensus among experts on whether abortion is morally right or wrong. See pp. 314–318. 3. c) Agreement in y on this issue is unlikely or very difficult . This is a defensible claim. A counter-argument could be made simply by pointing out how longstanding and entrenched the arguments about the morality of abortion are. That, all on its own, suggests that agreement is going to be hard to come by. See pp. 322–324. Passage 9 1. f) Appeal to eyewitness testimony . Appeal to eyewitness testimony proceeds as follows: O was in a good position to observe X ; there are no obvious factors that would bias the account given; O has documented the observation; therefore, O ’s account of X is reliable. See pp. 308, 310–311, 312–314, 318–319, 324, 326–327. 2. a) The premise that O was in a good position to observe X . We don’t actually know where O was when he/she made this observation. O might have been in the basement, the backyard, the neighbour’s house, etc. See pp. 324–325....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page11 / 14

3 c X is not free of bias This is the arguer’s mother...

This preview shows document pages 11 - 13. Sign up to view the full document.

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