Exercise Set #4 – Language Problems and Arguments PHIL1600 – Reasoning Skills (Winter 2023)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of British Columbia *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1600
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by MinisterFreedomShark29
Exercise Set #4 – Language Problems and Arguments PHIL1600 – Reasoning Skills (Winter 2023)
1. Consider the language problem contained within each of the following. For any case of ambiguity, provide at least two meanings that can be attributed to it. For any case of vagueness, explain why you cannot attribute any clear meaning to a word or statement. And for any case of equivocation, explain which word or clause is being equivocated upon and the meanings involved. (3pts)
(i) Okay, sure, two wrongs don’t make a right, but three lefts make a right! (0.75pts)
Equivocation: Right Two different ways right is being used is in a directional sense and also moral and ethical sense. (ii) “We plan to cut all homeless people in half by 2025.” (UK Conservative Party) (0.75pts)
Ambiguity: cut in half
One meaning and way to interpret cut in half is to cut the actual human body of the homeless person in half.
Then the second meaning of cut in half means to reduce the overall amount of homeless people by half.
(iii) Chaos looms to unravel the delicate balance of a population built on shifting sands. (0.75pts)
Vagueness: overall this statement is very vague and does not make much sense. What chaos looms? What population? What shifting sands? These are all vague statements that lack
information.
(iv) Man is rational, and no woman is a man; so, women are not rational. (0.75 pts)
Equivocation: Man The two cases where man is being used are different where the first instance is referring to “man” as in mankind our species. And the second term is being used as a gender based statement. 2. Based on the following passage, answer the questions below: “The government’s workplace discrimination laws are an insult to Canadian values and common sense. Think about it: if managers aren’t allowed to discriminate between good and bad employees—promoting the good ones and firing the bad ones—then valued individuals will have no incentive to work hard! As a result, outstanding workers will leave if the quality of their work doesn’t matter and everyone is simply treated the same.”
(i) Diagram the argument, specifying the conclusion and premise(s). (0.25 points)
Premise 1:
“The government's workplace discrimination laws are an insult to Canadian values and common sense.”
Premise 2: Think about it: if managers aren’t allowed to discriminate between good and bad employees—promoting the good ones and firing the bad ones—then valued individuals will have no incentive to work hard!
Conclusion:
As a result, outstanding workers will leave if the quality of their work doesn’t matter and everyone is simply treated the same.”
P1 + P2
C
(ii) What does the author seem to mean by “discrimination”? Are there problems with the definition(s)? (0.5 points)
When looking at what the author means by discrimination readers are initially inclined to believe that the discrimination laws refer to race, gender, etc. However, the following premise refers to the discrimination of bad and good works. This creates confusion for the reader as they may struggle to understand which definition and in what sense discrimination is being mentioned or talked about. (iii) Identify at least one other problematic use of language in this passage and specify how it weakens the argument. (0.25 points)
Vagueness: “discriminate between good and bad employees” this is very vague as it does not define or show what determines the difference between good and bad employees. This can make the argument weak due to the lack of information contributing to the premise and overall argument.
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