Key – Problem Set #2
PHL 130
Spring 2015
3.I
1. Conclusion marker
3. Reason marker
5. Reason marker
7. Reason marker
3.III
1. An argument: (1) ‘since’ is an argument marker; (2) it is a reason marker
(3)
P1. Chicago is north of Boston
P2. Boston is north of Charleston
------------------------------------------C. Chicago is north of Charleston
2. Not an argument
3. An argument: (1) ‘so’ is an argument marker; (2) it is a conclusion marker
(3)
P1. Texas has a greater area than Topeka
P2. Topeka has a greater area than the Bronx Zoo
---------------------------------------------------------------C. Texas has a greater area than the Bronx Zoo
3.IV
6.
(16) guarding
8.
(19) discounting (or guarding): Discounted: evidence is weak; Response: he’s guilty
(20) guarding (or discounting, or none): Discounted: the evidence; Response: he’s guilty
(21) discounting: Discounted: evidence is weak; Response: he’s guilty
10.
(24) argument marker (conclusion)
(25) guarding
3.VI
1. E+
3. E5. D
7. D
9. E11. D
13. E15. D
5.V
1. Not valid; not sound – just because professors agree about X doesn’t make X true
3. Valid; not sound – surely Lee must be able to do something right!
5. Not valid; not sound – the premise allows for the possibility that he is a Republican
7. Not valid; not sound – he could have become POTUS by appointment and resignation
5.VI
1. (a) Valid
(b) Sound
T
S
C
2. (a) Not valid
(b) Not sound
C
T
S
3. (a) Valid
(b) Not sound
C
T
S
4. (a) Valid
(b) Sound
C
T
S
13.III 4. (a) Begin with a very cold temperature, e.g., absolute zero. Add to that 1/1000th of a degree.
It is still cold. Add to that another 1/1000th of a degree, and it is still cold. And so on. Adding
1/1000th of a degree will never take you from cold to non-cold. Heat is one type of non-cold.
Thus, you can never get heat, and so heat is not real. Problem: There may be no clear point at
which you pass from cold to hot, but eventually you will add enough degrees to get there.
(b) There is no difference between absolute zero and absolute zero + 1/1000th of a degree, in
terms of cold, or between boiling and boiling and – 1/1000th of a degree in terms of heat. But
eventually, adding 1/1000th of a degree over and over again to absolute zero, and subtracting
1/1000th of a degree repeatedly from boiling will get you to the same point in the middle.
Since coming from below you will judge that point cold and coming from above you will
judge that point hot, there is no difference between cold and hot. Problem: Cold and heat can
pass almost indiscernibly into one another, and there may be little to say about whether
something in the middle is cold or hot, but this doesn’t mean the ends points aren’t different.
5. (a) Start with a condition where there are no taxes. Add a tax of .0001%. The result is a tax
that is not high. Add another .0001%. Still not high. And so on. You will never move from
taxes that aren’t high to taxes that are by adding .0001%. If you do this repeatedly, you will
get to any level of taxation you can specify, but you will never get to high taxes. Thus, there
are never high taxes. Problem: see above, (4a).
(b) For the pattern of this response, see (4b). Problem: see above, (4b).
6. (a) Science demands that its claims be supported by significant evidence to be legitimate. If
we start by recognizing that one could make a claim that is supported by no evidence, we can
then acknowledge that by adding a tiny bit of evidence to support the claim, it won’t
transform it into a legitimate claim. If we keep doing this, we will never pass from an
illegitimate claim to a legitimate claim, and so never from non-science to science. Therefore,
science is an illusion. Problem: Again, there may be no clear line between not enough
evidence and enough evidence, but we certainly can and do find empirical claims supported
at a level to count as legitimate scientific claims.
(b) As above, begin on one side with a faith-based claim that is not evidentially supported at
all and on the other with a well-supported scientific claim. Add a sliver of evidence to the
former and subtract a sliver from the latter. Neither move changes the status of the claim – it
is still a claim of faith in the former and a claim of science in the latter. Repeat this step and
continue to do so until you have the same level of evidence associated with both claims. You
will still regard the former as one of faith and the latter as scientific. Since they will have the
same level of evidence, this establishes that there is no difference between science and faith.
Problem: The problem is the same as the one described in (4b) above, viz., that while there is
a fuzzy middle area, there are clear differences between scientific claims and faith-based
claims, including how sensitive to new evidence they are. Further, this argument and (6a)
both ignore important contextual dimensions of what it is to count as a part of a faith or part
of a scientific endeavor – it is about the origins of claims, for example, and not just about the
evidence.
13.IV 1. S – A slippery slope that depends on causal influence between grades
2. F – This slippery slope focuses on an inequitable result of drawing a line.
3. C – This focuses on denying a conceptual difference.
4. S – The connection between consumption events is causal.
5. S – The changes are causally connected. –or–
C – Focuses on denying a classificatory difference
6. F – Equity considerations are paramount here.
7. S – One event causes another.
14.II
1. R: Milk drinkers choose powdered milk
Milk drinkers transform into dust
E: Milk drinkers turn to powdered milk
Milk drinkers turn into powder
2. R: Anti-busing passenger killed by Senate
Anti-busing amendment killed by Senate
E: Anti-busing vehicle rider put to death by Senate
Anti-busing bill rider voted down by Senate
3. R: Mrs. Gandhi pelted with stones in rally in India
Mrs. Gandhi high on drugs in rally in India
E: Mrs. Gandhi stoned by angry mob in rally in India
Mrs. Gandhi stoned out of her mind on drugs in rally in India
4. R: College graduates make senior citizen blind
College gives diploma to blind senior citizen
E: College graduates blind the eyes of a senior citizen
College graduates a blind senior citizen
5. R: The prices of jumping beans affect the poor
Increasing bean prices affect the poor
E: Jumping bean prices affect the poor who want jumping beans
Jumping of bean prices affect the poor who eat beans
14.IV 4. ‘natural’: It can be interpreted in opposition with ‘artificial’ or in opposition with ‘does not
conform with physical laws’ (i.e., ‘supernatural’)
5. ‘natural’: Here the contrast is between natural as opposed to made with artificial ingredients,
and natural as opposed to made by human beings
6. ‘right’: The contrast is between right understood as being legally permitted vs. right
understood as morally upstanding