Untitled document
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1300
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
Pages
5
Uploaded by CorporalGorilla4098
Leonardo Flores
PHIL 1300
ID#2065521
Activity 3.1
1.
What is a deductive argument?
An argument intended to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion.
2.
What is a deductive argument?
An argument intended to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion.
3.
Are inductive arguments truth-preserving? Why or why not?
No because as it is possible for the premises in a strong inductive argument to
be true while the conclusion is false.
4.
The terms valid and invalid apply to what types of arguments?
Deductive argument
5.
What kind of guarantee does a deductive argument provide when it is valid?
It has the kind of logical structure that guarantees the truth of the conclusion if
the premises are true.
6.
Can an inductive argument guarantee the truth of the conclusion if the premises
are true? Why or why not?
No. An inductive argument is intended to provide only probable support for its
conclusion.
7.
What is the difference between an inductively strong argument and an inductively
weak one?
An inductive argument that succeeds in providing probable-but not
conclusive-logical support for its conclusion is said to be strong. An inductive
argument that fails to provide such support is said to be weak.
8.
What is the term for valid arguments that have true premises?
Sound
9.
What is the term for strong arguments that have true premises?
Cogent
10.
Can a valid have false premises and a false conclusion? False premises and true
conclusion?
Yes;Yes
11.
What logical conclusion can you draw about an argument that is valid but has a
false conclusion?
At least one of the premises is false
12.
Is it possible for a valid argument to have true premises and a false conclusion?
No
13.
In what way are conclusions of deductive arguments absolute?
Either the conclusion is true or it is not. There is no sliding scale of truth or falsity.
Leonardo Flores
PHIL 1300
ID#2065521
3.2
1.
Step 1:
Conclusion
: Jack is lying.
Premises
: Either Jack is lying or he is not. If his
ears turn red, he’s lying. If they don’t turn red, he’s telling the truth. His ears are
red.
Step 2: Deductively valid.
Step 3: Does not apply
Step 4: Does not apply.
2.
Step 1:
Conclusion
: She has a superior intellect.
Premises
: Ethel graduated from
Yale. If she graduated from Yale, she probably has a superior intellect.
Step 2: Not deductively valid.
Step 3: Does not apply.
Step 4: Does not apply.
3.
Step 1:
Conclusion
: You’re nuts.
Premises
: If you go to that party you’re
completely nuts. You’re going to the party.
Step 2: Deductively valid.
Step 3: Does not apply.
Step 4: Does not apply.
4.
Step 1:
Conclusion
: Good sense is of all things in the world the most equally
distributed.
Premises
: Everybody thinks himself so abundantly provided with it,
that even those most difficult to please in all other matters do not commonly
desire more of it than they already possess.
Step 2: Not deductively valid.
Step 3: Not inductively strong.
Step 4: Inductively weak.
5.
Step 1:
Conclusion
: All absent-minded people are teachers.
Premises
: All
philosophers are absent-minded. All philosophers are teachers.
Step 2: Not deductively valid.
Step 3: Not inductively strong.
Step 4: Deductively invalid.
6.
Step 1:
Conclusion:
Thus, every musician has a college degree.
Premises:
Every
musician has had special training, and everyone with special training has a
college degree.
Step 2: Deductively valid.
Step 3: Does not apply.
Step 4: Does not apply.
Leonardo Flores
PHIL 1300
ID#2065521
7.
Step 1:
Conclusion
: People with high SAT scores¾which are comparable to high
IQ scores¾also probably have psychic abilities.
Premises
: People with high IQs
also have psychic abilities.
Step 2: Not deductively valid.
Step 3: Not inductively strong.
Step 4: Inductively weak.
8.
Step 1:
Conclusion
: There’s a conspiracy.
Premises
: If Elvis Presley’s name is
spelled wrong on his tombstone, there must be some kind of conspiracy
surrounding the death of the King. His name is spelled wrong.
Step 2: Deductively valid.
Step 3: Does not apply.
Step 4: Does not apply.
9.
Step 1:
Conclusion:
Some actors who sing also play a musical instrument.
Premises:
Some actors sing, and some play a musical instrument.
Step 2: Deductively invalid.
Step 3: Not inductively strong.
Step 4: Intended to be deductive.
10.Step 1:
Conclusion
: Some people in this neighborhood are bigots.
Premises
:
Anyone who is not a bigot will agree that Chris is a good fellow. Some people in
this neighborhood think that he’s anything but a good fellow.
Step 2: Deductively valid.
Step 3: Does not apply.
Step 4: Does not apply.
11. Step 1:
Conclusion
: In the actual living of life there is no logic.
Premise
: Life is
superior to logic.
Step 2: Not deductively valid.
Step 3: Not inductively strong.
Step 4: Deductively invalid.
12.Step 1:
Conclusion
: Someone obviously burglarized the place.
Premises
: A vase
was found broken on the floor; some money had been taken out of the safe; and
there were strange scratches on the wall.
Step 2: Not deductively valid.
Step 3: Inductively strong.
Step 4: Does not apply.
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
Leonardo Flores
PHIL 1300
ID#2065521
13.Step 1:
Conclusion
: She’s probably guilty.
Premises
: All the evidence in this trial
suggests that Lizzy Borden is guilty of murder.
Step 2: Not deductively valid.
Step 3: Inductively strong.
Step 4: Does not apply.
14.Step 1:
Conclusion
: Everything is not all right.
Premises
: If everything were all
right, there would be no blood on the floor. Of course, there is plenty of blood on
the floor.
Step 2: Deductively valid.
Step 3: Does not apply.
Step 4: Does not apply.
15.Step 1:
Conclusion:
So it’s impossible for androids to have minds.
Premises:
If
minds are identical to brains¾that is, if one’s mind is nothing but a
brain¾androids could never have minds because they wouldn’t have brains.
Clearly, a mind is nothing but a brain.
Step 2: Deductively valid.
Step 3: Does not apply.
Step 4: Does not apply.
16.Step 1:
Conclusion
: Her training and education must be directed toward that end.
Premises
: From infancy, almost, the average girl is told that marriage is her
ultimate goal.
Step 2: Not deductively valid.
Step 3: Not inductively strong.
Step 4: Inductively weak.
17.Step 1:
Conclusion
: Doubtless you have been visited by space aliens.
Premises
:
If you have scratches on your body that you can’t account for, and you feel that
you have been visited by space aliens, then you really have been visited by
space aliens. You have such scratches, and you have experienced such feelings.
Step 2: Deductively valid.
Step 3: Does not apply.
Step 4: Does not apply.
18.Step 1:
Conclusion
: War has begun.
Premises
: If bombs are falling on London,
war has started. The bombs are falling now.
Step 2: Deductively valid.
Step 3: Does not apply.
Leonardo Flores
PHIL 1300
ID#2065521
Step 4: Does not apply.
3.3
1.Weak
2. Valid
3. Valid
4. Valid
5. Strong
6. Valid
7. Valid
8. Valid
9. Weak
10. Weak
11. Weak
12. Valid
13. Strong
14. Valid
15. Weak
16. Valid
17. Valid
18. Valid
19. Weak
20. Valid
21. Strong
22. Invalid
23. Invalid