Discussion Questions Module 2
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Arizona State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
MISC
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by MegaEchidnaMaster736
Discussion Questions Module 2
Section A
3.1*
(1; 2; 3; 5; 7; 9; 11)
1.
What is a deductive argument? A deductive argument is intended to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion.
2.
What is an inductive argument? An inductive argument is intended to provide probable—not conclusive—support for its conclusion.
3.
Are inductive arguments truth-preserving? Why or why not? The structure of an inductively strong argument cannot guarantee that the conclusion is true if the premises are true but the conclusion can be rendered probable and worthy of acceptance. Because the truth of the conclusion
cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises, inductive arguments are not truth-preserving.
5.
What kind of guarantee does a deductive argument provide when it is valid? A deductive argument that succeeds in providing such decisive logical support is said to be valid.
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 conclusion logical support for its conclusion is said to be strong.
An inductive argument that fails to provide such support is said to be weak.
9.
What is the term for strong arguments that have true premises? they are said to be cogent
11.
What logical conclusion can you draw about an argument that is valid but has a false conclusion? false premises and a false conclusion
3.2
(1*; 3; 5) For each of the following arguments, follow the four-step procedure to determine whether it is deductive or inductive, valid or invalid, and strong or weak. Indicate the results of applying each step.
1.
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. Jack is lying. Step2: Deductive, valid
3.
If you go to that party, you’re completely nuts. You’re going to the party. It necessarily follows that you’re nuts. Step 2: Deductive, valid
Step 3: inductively strong
Step 4: Inductively weak
5.
All philosophers are absent-minded. All philosophers are teachers. It necessarily follows that all absent-minded people are teachers. Step 2: Not Deductively valid
Step 3: Not inductively strong
Step 4: Deductively invalid
3.3
(1*; 2; 5)
1.
Alice says that nothing is sacred. So, intolerance toward other religions is okay.
Invalid and weak
2.
Social welfare is by definition a handout to people who have not worked for it. But giving people money that they have not earned through labor is not helping anyone. It follows then that social welfare does not help anyone. Invalid and strong.
5.
Any sitcom that tries to imitate The Big Bang Theory is probably a piece of trash. All of this season’s sitcoms try to ape Big Bang. They’ve gotta be trash. Invalid and strong.
3.4 I
(2*)
2.
Not everyone in this country has health insurance. Therefore, healthcare is a disaster. Implicit premise Not everyone in this country has health insurance.
3.4 II
(2*)
2.
Aziz regularly eats at McDonald’s, so Aziz is likely to gain a few pounds. Premise: McDonalds is an unhealthy place with fatty foods. 3.5
(2*; 3; 4)
2.
If the butler didn’t kill the master, then the maid did. Valid, Modus Ponens
The butler didn’t kill him.
So the maid killed him.
3.
Either John drove home or he stayed late. Valid, Disjunctive Syllogism
He didn’t drive home.
Therefore, he stayed late.
4.
If the South Africans have nuclear weapons, the South African jungle will be radioactive. Invalid, Affirming the Consequent
3.6
(1*)
1.
If God is in his heaven, then all is right with the world
. Modus Ponens
Section B
3.2
(7; 11; 13)
7.
People with high IQs also have psychic abilities. People with high SAT scores—which are comparable to high IQ scores—also probably have psychic abilities.
Step 1: Conclusion People with high SAT scores, which are comparable to high IQ scores also 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
11.
“In the actual living of life there is no logic, for life is superior to logic.” [Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, Essays in Zen Buddhism]
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
13.
All the evidence in this trial suggests that Lizzy Borden is guilty of murder. Let’s face it: She’s probably guilty.
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.
3.3
(7; 9; 13; 15)
7.
Either you’re lying or you’re not telling the whole story. You’re obviously not lying, so you’re just relating part of the story. valid
9.
My friends say that asteroids are not real. I’ve never found a single asteroid or a piece of one. Weak 13.
You flunked the last three tests. You didn’t show up for the last eight classes. And you haven’t written any of the essays. Looks like you don’t know the material. Strong
15.
Bachelors are unmarried, and George acts like he’s not married. He’s a bachelor for sure. Weak
3.4 I
(4; 6)
4.
The FBI doesn’t have a very serious focus on stopping terrorism. Another major terrorist attack will happen in this country. Implicit premise: If the FBI doesn’t have a very serious focus on stopping
terrorism, another major terrorist attack will happen in this country.
6.
The conflict in Indonesia is a genuine war. So it can’t possibly be morally justified. Implicit premise: No genuine war can be morally justified.
3.4 II
(4; 6)
4.
Seventy-one percent of the faculty and staff at Goddard Community College are Democrats. So most of the students are probably Democrats
. Changed premise: A recent poll shows that 71 percent of
the students at Goddard Community College are Democrats.
* 6.
If Assad’s fingerprints are on the vase, then he’s probably the one who broke it. He’s probably the one who broke it. Added premise: Assad’s fingerprints are on the vase.
3.5
(5; 7; 8)
5.
If the New York Times comes out in favor of the liberal democrats, they will win the election. But the newspaper will not come out in favor of the liberal democrats, so they will not win
. Invalid; denying the antecedent.
7.
If ESP (extrasensory perception) were real, psychic predictions would be completely reliable.
Psychic predictions are completely reliable.
Therefore, ESP is real. Invalid; affirming the consequent.
8.
If Miley Cyrus keeps playing the role of the twisted tart on stage, she will lose all her fans. Well, she has stopped playing that role, so she will not lose all her fans. Invalid; denying the antecedent
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
3.6
(3; 4)
3.
If some wars are just, then pacifism is false. If some wars are just, then pacifism is false. But pacifism is true. Therefore, it’s not the case that some wars are just
.
4.
If the new vaccine prevents the spread of the virus, the researchers who developed the vaccine should get the Nobel Prize
. If the new vaccine prevents the spread of the virus, the researchers who developed the vaccine should get the Nobel Prize. It does prevent the spread of the virus. Therefore,
the researchers who developed the vaccine should get the Nobel Prize