Due Oct 25, 1:59 PM +07
Final Quiz
ANSWER: False
Arguments are not fights where the goal is to beat an opponent. Sometimes arguments are given as part of personal or cooperative attempts to figure things out, and then there is no opponent to beat.
ANSWER: True
This follows from the definition of an argument that was explained in the lecture. Statements and sentences are made up of language and propositions are expressed in language.
ANSWER: FALSE
An argument can have only one premise, such as “He’s a car dealer, so he sells cars.”
ANSWER: False
You can persuade people — that is, bring about an intended change in their beliefs — with bad arguments that do not give good reasons and, hence, do not justify the conclusion.
ANSWER: True
Every kind of explanation gives some kind reason why things happen, although that reason might be causal, teleological, formal, or material. Such explanatory reasons contrast with justificatory reasons to believe that something did happen.
ANSWER: False
As the lecture explains, the arbitrariness of language is limited by its goal of representing the world and also by its social nature.
ANSWER: True
This substitution is good test of when a word is functioning as a premise marker. For example, the word “for” does not function as a premise marker in “You cannot buy a car for only $5” because it makes no sense to say “You cannot buy a car because only $5.” In contrast, the word “for” does function as a premise marker in “You cannot buy a car, for you have only $5” because it does make sense to say “You cannot buy a car, because you have only $5.”
ANSWER: False
An “if…then…” sentence lays out a pattern of argument, because it can become an argument if the speaker asserts the “if” clause (called the antecedent). However, the “if…then…” sentence by itself does not indicate an argument, because that sentence by itself does not yet assert the “if” clause. For example, “If I had children who had children who had children who had children who had children, then I would be a great-great-great-grandparent” could be part of an argument that I am a great-great-great-grandparent, but only if the arguer also asserts “I do have children who have children who have children who have children who have children.” Still, the conditional by itself does not indicate any argument for that conclusion. Indeed, that sentence could be used to argue for the opposite or simply to explain what is meant by the term “great-great-great-grandparent.”
ANSWER: True
To say that something is bad or wrong is to say that it violates some relevant standard. The context usually indicates which standard is relevant. This was discussed in the lecture on evaluative language.
ANSWER: G = guarding
This sentence defines what a guarding term is. For example, if I say “Some of my friends are successful” instead of “All of my friends are successful”, then my claim is less vulnerable to potential criticisms and refutation, because the latter (“All …”) can be refuted, but the former (“Some …”) cannot be refuted, merely by pointing out one of my friends who is not successful. That is why the term “some” is a guarding term in this sentence.
ANSWER: A = assuring
When I assure you by saying “Obviously, it is the case” or “I assure you that it is the case,” I suggest that there is a reason to believe that it is the case, but I do not explicitly state that reason.
ANSWER: (iv) Its premises are true and its conclusion is false.
According to our technical definition of validity, an argument is valid if and only if it is NOT possible that its premises are true and its conclusion is false. However, this combination of truth values clearly IS possible if its premises in fact ARE true and its conclusion in fact IS false. Thus, an argument cannot ever be valid when its premises and conclusion have this combination of truth values. In contrast, a valid argument can have the other combinations of truth-values in the other answers.
ANSWER: B = an argument that is both valid and sound
It is not possible that Japan is bigger than Israel and Japan is not bigger than China, but China is not bigger than Israel. That makes the argument in the question valid. In addition, it is commonly known that Japan is bigger than Israel and Japan is not bigger than China. Thus, the argument is also sound.
ANSWER: A = an argument that is neither valid nor sound
This argument is not valid, because it is possible that he can lift 100 kilograms without being stronger than the Russian weightlifting champion, because it is possible the Russian weightlifting champion can lift more than 100 kilograms.
ANSWER: R = an argument marker
The term “so” is used here as an argument marker. We can know that it has this function because the meaning would not change significantly if we substituted another argument marker for “so”, as in this: “…in his hands painting became an exact science. THUS, if he paints two men rowing on a river, we can tell the month, day, and hour….” We could also say “…in his hands painting became an exact science, and BECAUSE OF THAT, if he paints two men rowing on a river, we can tell the month, day, and hour….” We can tell the day and hour BECAUSE he made his painting an exact science. Either way, the argument is “if he paints two men rowing on a river, we can tell the month, day, and hour…”, so the word “so” is an argument marker.
ANSWER: D = a discounting term
The term “but” discounts the objection that it is too early to talk about this serious issue. Many people do not like to talk about such heavy issues before they have their coffee in the morning.
ANSWER: D = discounting term
The word “but” here is used to discount the objection: Is that all you admire him for? Notice that “above all” reinforces the suggestion that the point after “but” is more important than the point before “but”. The emphasis on what follows the word “but” is confirmed by the words “above all” in that sentence.
ANSWER: R = an argument marker
The word “for” is used here as an argument marker. We can know that it has this function because the meaning would not change significantly if we substituted another argument marker for “for”, as in “We prize him above all because of the new dimension of moral awareness.” The new dimension of moral awareness is the reason why we prize him.
ANSWER: D = discounting term
The term “however” is used here to discount the objection that all states set the drinking age at 21 because they carefully considered alternatives and agree that 21 is the right age. To counter that possible objection, the author says (after “however”) that the states set the age at 21 only because the federal government forces them to do so by threatening to withdraw federal highway funds if the states do not set the drinking age at 21.
ANSWER: G = a guarding term
The author does not explicitly claim that choosing Equal Exchange coffee will definitely make a change. The author cannot assert that, because a lot of people would need to buy Equal Exchange Coffee in order to make any real change in the coffee market. That is why the author guards this claim by saying only that you CAN help to make a change. The guarding term is easier to defend.
ANSWER: E+ = a positive evaluative term
You cannot define the term “fair” without referring to what is good or bad. Just try it. Mere equality is not the same as fairness, because inequality in some circumstances (such as prizes for races) can be fair.
ANSWER: N = none of the above
Many people would view a “one-way” trip to Mars as bad, because they want to return. However, to say that the trip is one-way is simply to describe what kind of trip it is. The term “one-way” does not in itself say that the trip is good or bad. It also does not assure, guard, discount, or mark a premise or conclusion.
ANSWER: D = a discounting term
The term “However” here discounts the objection that optimal or ideal design is evidence for evolution, as textbooks often suggest.
ANSWER: E- = a negative evaluative term
To be lousy is to be bad in some way.
ANSWER: P = a premise marker
You can tell that “for” a premise marker, because the meaning of the sentence does not change significantly if you substitute another premise marker, such as “because.” Here the term “for” indicates that the pride taken by Equal Exchange Coffee company is a reason why your decision to buy Equal Exchange need not be completely altruistic.
Reasons are given by arguments, so this sentence basically means that odd arrangements and funny solutions provide an argument that evolution occurred. The suggested argument would have premises about odd arrangements and funny solutions and a conclusion that claims evolution. That is why "reasons" is a conclusion marker in this case.
ANSWER: (iii) Mrs. Peacock did not commit the murder.
This suppressed premise makes the argument valid because every argument of the form “G or P, not P, so G” is valid. None of the other answers makes the argument valid.
ANSWER: (i) You ought not to eat anything that will ruin your diet.
This answer is the only suppressed premise among the options that makes the argument valid.
ANSWER: (iii)
One of the other candidate reconstructions merely repeats the sentences in the argument without adding needed suppressed premises, so that argument is not valid. Another candidate reconstructs the argument as two separate arguments in a branching structure, but that overlooks the relation of support between these branches. The best reconstruction (which is the correct answer) avoids both of these flaws.
ANSWER: (iii)
Reconstruction (i) can’t be the best, because it simply repeats the order in which the sentences occur without revealing how some claims are reasons for others. Reconstruction (ii) is inferior, because its step from 4 to 5 is not valid. It needs a suppressed premise to connect the failure to reflect reality to the need to change the law. Reconstruction (iv) is defective, because its first stage (from 1–2 to 3) is not valid, and its suppressed premises 5 and 9 are unnecessary. Reconstruction (iii) is the best, because it is valid and makes sense of the argument without adding more than is needed.
Comments
Post a Comment