module 7 assignment

.docx

School

Toronto Metropolitan University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

MISC

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Jun 27, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

3

Uploaded by SuperFreedom14559

1. Suppose I decide not to buy a television set today because my horoscope says it is a bad day for buying anything. I have a reason for not buying the TV set, but is my reasoning a non sequitur? Why or why not? No, your reasoning would not be considered non sequitur because your reasoning of the horoscope saying it is a bad day for buying anything provides a logical and clear ground to reach the conclusion of not buying the tv set. Although some may not believe in horoscopes and question the strength of the reasoning, your reasoning is not irrelevant and allows one to see the same conclusion. 2. Does the following argument use a fallacious appeal to authority? In what way? Glass is mostly silicon atoms that slow the speed of light down to 122,000 miles per second. I know this because I overheard one of the employees at the science museum say so. I think it was the Assistant Director. Yes, this argument uses a fallacious appeal to authority. This is evident as the speaker tries to justify their statement of “glass being mostly silicon atoms that slow the speed of light down to 122,000 miles per second” by claiming that they heard an authoritative, more knowledgeable figure such as an employee at the science museum saying it. By further specifying that the assistant director may have said it, the statement can potentially become more believable and true since such an authoritative person said it. 3. State how to go between the horns of the following dilemma. Ignore the loaded language. I understand what you are saying about business ethics, but you need to see it from the business person's perspective. The choice in business is simple: either I adopt a vow of poverty and go for sainthood, or I take the more sensible path of maximizing personal income no matter what. To go between the horns of this dilemma, I would offer a third choice of balancing both the speaker’s business ethics and also their moral, human ethics. They do not necessarily need to maximize their personal income, but can greatly increase their income while also occasionally giving back and exhibiting acts of sainthood. 4. Is the fallacy of faulty comparison committed in the text of this 1950s magazine advertisement? MORE DOCTORS SMOKE OUR CIGARETTES. Check for yourself-smoke our cigarette and see if you don't get less throat irritation.
Yes, the fallacy of faulty comparison is committed in this text. The faulty comparison occurs when comparing smoking the advertised cigarette to get less throat irritation, as opposed to smoking other brands that may actually increase throat irritation. It also occurs when comparing doctors smoking the cigarettes to yourself smoking them. 5. Which fallacy, if any, occurs in the following piece of reasoning? I left my car keys in the house. I’ve looked carefully all over the bedroom for my car keys and failed to find them. Therefore, I left them in some other room. No fallacy occurs in the following piece of reasoning, as the speaker has logically reasoned that since their keys are not in their bedroom and they know it is somewhere in their house, then their keys are in a different room. 6. If there is a fallacy in the following passage, which one is it? As of January 23, 1977, 88 percent of all U.S. homes had at least one TV set. As of January 23, 1987, 77 percent of all U.S. homes had at least one color TV set. So, as of January 23, 1997 nearly 66 percent of all U.S. homes will have a cell phone. The fallacy that is present in this passage is the fallacy of faulty comparison. The data being compared is different in terms of what is being compared, as the number of TV sets is initially compared to the number TV sets with color, and then again compared to the number of homes that will have a cell phone. The information is different and does not give way for a logical conclusion as it compares 3 different data sets with little to no correlation to one another. 7. Comment on the quality of the following reasoning and give a justification for your comment. Listen, Jerry. You’ve been convicted twice of molesting children, so your reasons for why the new child-care centre should be built near your house aren't going to be acceptable to this committee. I think that the following reasoning is justified and valid because since Jerry has been convicted twice of molesting children, he should not be in any child’s proximity, let alone have an entire child-care centre built near him where he could possibly commit another act of molestation of a child. This warrants the reasoning for not accepting his thoughts or ideas at the committee while knowing his background, as having a child care centre built near him could be dangerous to children.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help