I need help in answering these questions?
1. Are all valid arguments (arguments with no loopholes) good arguments?
(i.) Yes (ii.) No (iii.) Don't make my day! (iv.) Maybe yes and maybe no Ch 1 and slides
2. If an argument is loophole-free (i.e., it is valid), might its premises be false? Ch 1and slides
(i.) Yes (ii.) No (iii.) The question is meaningless (iv.) No one really knows
3. Premises need to be true in order to provide good support for the conclusion of an argument. Ch 1 and slides
(i) True (ii) False (iii) It depends on lots of things (iv) Maybe!
4. why are gut feelings that a conclusion is true not a reliable indicator of how well the premises support it? Ch 2
5. Construct a spurious duplicate for the following argument: Ch 2
P: Steven Bannon is caught by paparazzi forcing Donald Trump onto the floor and brutally shearing his blond hair.
C: The pictures taken by the paparazzi will damage Bannon enormously.
Loophole: The photo lab technician accidentally drops a gallon of bleach on the damaging picture while it is in the developing tray.
6. Argument B comes from argument A by making the conclusion of argument B more specific (i.e. more informative) than that of A (without changing the topic) and using the premises of argument A. Is it possible for argument A to have loopholes which argument B does not have? Ch 2
(i.) Yes (ii.) No (iii.) It is impossible to answer this question (iv.) Did a lion tell you this?
7. If you find many loopholes to an argument, and conjecture there are many more loopholes you would be able to think of if you had the time to do that, then the support the premises give to the conclusion is
(i) Perfect—10 (ii) the worst possible-0 (iii) Close to 0 (iv) maximal ignorance—5 Ch 2
8. If there is information in the structure of the space of situations in which an argument's premises are true which shows that the premises are true and the conclusion is false in 1/8 of the space, and the argument's premises are true, is it rational to believe that the negation of the conclusion is true?
(i.) Yes (ii.) No (iii.) It could not be rational in either case (iv.) You stupid non-classicist!
9. If the conclusion of a valid argument is false, then at least one of the premises of the argument MUST be Ch 2
(i) True (ii) False (iii) Neither true nor false (iv) Either true or false
10. If x is causally sufficient for y, then it is necessary that y is
___________________________________________________ for x. Ch 17
11. Construct an evil twin for the following valid argument (it has the form Modus Ponens): Ch 15 (Logic)
P1: If not-A then (not-B provided C follows from D)
C: Not-B provided C follows from D
12. It is always the best policy in deciding upon what is the most plausible implicit premise to select one whose form is a conditionalization. (i) True (ii) False (iii) Neither true nor false (iv) Both true and false Ch 14
13. If x is a node in a hierarchically organized tree structure, then it is
________________________________ for all nodes in the tree structure higher than it. Ch 17
14. P1: _____________________ of all Rutgers-Newark students will get drunk this weekend. P2: Booze-Head is a Rutgers-Newark student. It can be inductively concluded about Booze-Head from these premises that he will not get drunk this weekend. (Read the material on statistical syllogism.) Ch 19
15. When we conjecture x causes y and perform an experiment to prove this is so, how do we rule out the case that y causes x, where x and y occur simultaneously? (Read the material on performing scientific experiments.) Ch 18
16. If you encounter a substitution instance of Disjunctive Syllogism in which the second premise is false, is it rational to believe the conclusion? Ch 2 and Ch 15
(i) YES (ii) NO (iii) There is no determinate answer (iv) It is unknown
17. "Of course the Civil War was good for the South. It was good for the entire nation." (Name the fallacy) [23,24]
18. "How can anyone seriously believe in evolution? I certainly don't. How can you take seriously a theory that claims that humans are just monkeys with less hair and bigger brains and that our ancestors were apes?" (Name the fallacy) [23,24]
19. "I should not get a speeding ticket for driving 66 MPH, because my driving did not all of a sudden get more dangerous when I passed the speed limit of 65 MPH." (Name the fallacy) [23,24]
20. "Jason is violently and passionately opposed to all cases of euthanasia. Therefore, all cases of euthanasia are morally wrong for Jason.
(Name the fallacy) [23,24]
Recently Asked Questions
- 4. Six identical resistors are connected in series with a battery. The number of joules per second supplied by the battery is then determined. If a seventh
- If you were studying suicide in your hometown would you rely more on a qualitative approach or a quantitative approach? Why?
- How would you defend the need for careful problem definition as a first step in problem solving?