CRITICAL THINKING
CHAPTERS 4 AND 5 (3 REVIEW)
ASSIGNMENT #2
PROFESSOR JULIE YOO
Grade: 101
Excellent
Due TODAY at 8:00 pm. Please use the Turn-It-In link on our moodle site. As a favor to me,
please keep the questions in BLUE and put your answers in BLACK.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Name: _____Jeong
Min Mun_________________
1. Deduction: Be prepared to answer these questions about validity and soundness. Provide
examples of your own. Do not use the examples in the lecture notes or textbook.
i. Can a VALID deductive argument have TRUE premises and a FALSE
conclusion? Explain your answer.
No. if the premises are true, the conclusion must be absolutely, positively true. It is
impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusions false.
good
ii. Can a VALID deductive argument have FALSE premises (or at least one
false premise) and a FALSE conclusion? Explain your answer.
yes.
1) all dogs are reptiles. (F)
2) bugs bunny is a dog (F)
Conclusion: So bugs bunny is a reptile. (F)
We all know the premises and conclusion are false. All dogs are not
reptiles. Bugs bunny is not a dog, and bugs bunny is not a reptile. However, it is valid
argument because the premises contain the conclusion, and the conclusion directly
follows. But, it is unacceptable, and unsound.
good
Induction: Be prepared to answer these questions about inductive strength and cogency.
Provide examples of your own. Do not use the examples in the lecture notes or textbook.
i. Can a STRONG inductive argument have FALSE (or at least one false
premise)premises and a FALSE conclusion? Explain your answer.
Yes.
1) Most AV hospital supervisors were born in Lancaster (F)
2) The current AV hospital supervisor was also born in Lancaster (F)
Conclusion: The next AV hospital supervisor will be from Lancaster (F)
This is a strong argument because first premises said that most AV hospital supervisors
were tall. Most!! So, there is high percentage that the next AV hospital supervisor will be
tall. And, if you are working with false premises, it can lead to a false conclusion.
good
-
ii. Can a WEAK inductive argument have TRUE premises and a TRUE conclusion?
Explain your answer.
Yes.
1) Some nursing teachers are tall in CSUN (T)
2) The current nursing teacher is tall in CSUN (T)
Conclusion: the next nursing teacher will be tall. (T)
This is a weak argument because premises provide a small base for the conclusion,
making the conclusion a big leap. First premises said that some nursing teachers are tall.
Only some are tall!! So, there is low possibility that the next nursing teacher will be tall.
good
Therefore, it is an argument, but weak.
What is the definition of strength (strong argument)? An inductive argument that succeeds in
providing probable logical support for its conclusion is said to be strong.
How is the inductive notion of strength analogous to the deductive notion of validity? In
inductive argument, Strength is determined by whether it succeeds in providing probable logical
support for its conclusion. So strong argument means that it is improbable for all the premises to be
true and the conclusion false. In deductive argument, validity is determined by whether it succeeds in
providing such decisive logical support for conclusion. So valid argument means that it is impossible
Very nice!
for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
And how is the inductive notion of cogency analogous to the deductive notion of soundness?
In inductive argument, cogency is when arguments are strong and have true premises.
In deductive argument, soundness is when arguments are valid and have true premises.
good
Come up with your own SOUND argument for the deductive argument of modus tollens:
If you do exercise every day, then you can lose your weight.
You didn’t lose your weight. So you didn’t do exercise every day.
good
2. We can justify our beliefs by giving an argument (covered in chapter 3) or by giving
direct evidence. Direct evidence can come in one of two forms: one’s own observation and experiences, or an external source, like a person, the internet, newspapers, books, the
many forms of social media media, such as Twitter, Instagram, etc. This question is
about using your own observation. Sometimes, personal experience is an unreliable
source of information. Of the six things listed in the lecture notes, which one is the
hardest to assess from the first person point of view?
Innumeracy and probability: It is hard to assess from the first person point of view.
Let’s say, an unusual event happens, and a person experiences that. Then the person will
believe that is true. After that, the person will deliver the experienced information to
other people. However, it is hard to assess if the information is true or false. To determine
the accuracy of the information, we are required to examine the information, but as I said
the above, it is an unusual event, which means there is less chance to experience the same
event in the future. Therefore, this kind of personal experience is hard to assess.
ok
2. When it comes to using the Internet, we use slightly different criteria for evaluating
reliability and expertise. Three reputable universities have posted guides for evaluating web
pages: one from UC Berkeley, one from Johns Hopkins University, and one from Cornell
University. Look at all three (they are also posted on our moodle site):
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html
http://guides.library.jhu.edu/evaluatinginformation
http://olinuris.library.cornell.edu/ref/research/webcrit.html
Identify five criteria common among the three university guidelines for using the Internet to
get reliable information (there is more than five, but five is sufficient for full credit).
Accuracy, Authority, Objectivity, Currency, Coverage
good
There has been a heated debate about whether GMOs (genetically modified foods) are
dangerous. Suppose you were asked to write an objective research paper the debate. How
would you handle the claims about the safety of GMOs made by Monsanto (a huge food
corporation)? Look at this website: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/foodsafety.aspx As a responsible researcher, would you just report what they say and leave it at that?
Why or why not? Use at least three of the guidelines from one the three university guidelines
posted above. Yes, it is a reliable website because it has currency, authority, and coverage.
1) In newsroom, all news was dated precisely when it was posted. It also has accurate
date of copy right. It gives readers accurate information.
2) Also, the web site provides biographical information, including the author’s position,
institutional affiliation, e-mail address, phone number, and location address.
3) Lastly, the website doesn’t require special software to view the information, and it is
free to obtain the information. So, people are able to view the necessary information
anytime.
actually, it is very biased
-2
Journalism is in the business of reporting the truth. Of course not all journalists are good
or honest, but to do a proper job, they follow a certain rule: use three independent sources
that corroborate the information. Why do the sources have to be independent? According to Wikipedia, independent source refers to two or more unconnected
people, organizations, entities, or objects which provide a given set of information. It
means the sources have fairness. Especially, journalism should deliver unbiased
information to people because once they are biased, the information is might be not
true anymore.
ok
3.
Define these terms:
Fallacy of Appeal to Tradition : an argument that a claim must be true just because
it’s part of a tradition.
ok
Fallacy of Red Herring : an argument commits the red herring fallacy when it
raises an irrelevant issue during an argument to throw the opponent off the
ok
topic under discussion.
4. Carefully go through the Creationist Fallacies youtube video (broken into three parts). As
you will notice, the video first gives the definition of a fallacy, then presents a clip to
demonstrate the fallacy. For the following fallacies, explain how the clip exemplifies the
fallacy. Under the video on the youtube page, all the fallacies are listed and the time when
the fallacy is presented in the video. Some of the fallacies in the clips are kind of subtle, so
you might need to repeat them several times to catch the fallacy. Also, other clips are ironic;
they parody the fallacy being committed, so be careful.
a. Ad Hominem Fallacy (Actually, the clip also commits two other fallacies as well: the
fallacy of equivocation and the straw man fallacy. One extra credit point each for if
you explain how.)
Charles Darwin wrote a book, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”. In this
youtube video clip, Ken Ham insisted that Charles Darwin is a racist getting this
idea from the book title.
-ad hominem fallacy: Ken ham is attacking Charles Darwin in order to discredit
good
Charles darwin’s argument/opinion by saying he is a racist.
- equivocation: he concluded that Charles Darwin is a racist without enough
reasoning. Because Charles Darwin said “preservation of favored races”, it
doesn’t mean Charles Darwin is a racist. It is the misleading use of a term with
ok +1
more than one meaning or sense.
-straw man: he made Charles Darwin’s argument sounds ridiculous and
distorted Charles Darwin’s argument by saying he is a racist!! good +1
False Dichotomy (Actually, the creepy kid begs the question! Another extra credit point if you
explain how.)
- False Dichotomy: The kid stated christianism (Bible) VS evolutionism. Bible
said death came by man sin and evolutionist said man came by death. The
kid claims that there are only two options. In fact, there are other
possibilities.
good
-
Begging the question: The kid is arguing about bible and evolution without
any evidence. For example, he said “you can come to the theory of evolution
by simply looking at what the bible said and flip in on its head.” He doesn’t
provide any accurate information why theory of evolution is true. He is just
saying that we can believe theory of evolution if we look at the bible
oppositely. This kid is also arguing in a circle by saying that “evolution said
man came from death, and bible said death came from man’s sin.” He is
attempting to establish the conclusion of an argument by using that
conclusion as a premise.
ok +1
5. Identify the fallacy and explain WHY you think it commits the fallacy. (Please note that
sometimes, more than one fallacy is committed; however, you need to identify only one to
get full credit.):
a. We can’t legalize gay marriage. If you let people of the same sex get married, then
you’ll have to let people get married to their cats or dogs or maybe even their pet goldfish. And once that happens, cat and dogs will be able to get married to each
other, and surely that will completely undermine the institution of marriage.
Fallacy: slippery slope
good
Explanation: If we legalize gay marriage, then marrying with their dog, cat, or goldfish
will be allowed. And if marrying with their animals is allowed, then cat and dog
marriage also will be allowed. So, this argument is taking a certain step leading to
exaggerated results.
b. Mo: “I am the king.” Jo: “Wait, why do you get to be the king?”
Mo: “Because I’m wearing the crown.”
Jo: “Wait again, why do you get to wear the crown?”
Mo: “Because I am the king.
good
Fallacy: begging the question
Explanation: Mo is arguing in a circle. He is attempting to establish the conclusion of an
argument by using that conclusion as a premise. (I am a king because I have crown. I
have crown because I am a king.)
c. My company is been accused of dumping toxins near an elementary school. But is
that what we should be looking at? We should be more worried about the decline of
our public education system. Our children are performing worse than children of this
school 10 years ago. Clearly, the teachers are no doing their jobs if the children are
performing worse. If children aren’t learning, our country will not be competitive in the global market and our country will lose its ranking as a world power.
good
Fallacy: Red herring
Explanation: the topic is about dumping toxins near an elementary school. However, he
is trying to raise irrelevant issue (public education system) during that argument.
d. Jo says that we should legalize marijuana for cancer patients who undergo
chemotherapy. But do you really want to make it legal for just anyone to access any
hard drug? Just imagine everyone going to their local pharmacy to get cocaine,
heroin, and ecstacy. Our society would crumble! Jo should take back her proposal.
cery good
Fallacy: Straw man
Explanation: this person is trying to persuade people by appealing Jo’s opinion doesn’t
make sense. If we allow marijuana, everyone will use cocaine, heroin, ecstacy. This
person is trying to weaken Jo’s opinion by making sound ridiculous.
e. Mo claims that we should save energy. But we can’t his claims seriously. After all, he owns several huge mansions homes. Big houses require a great deal of precious
energy to run. If he really thought that we should save energy, then he would live in a
much more modest house, but he doesn’t.
good
Fallacy: appeal to the person
Explanation: this person is also attacking Mo about saving energy. He claims that we
need to save energy because he has several huge mansions, which require a great deal of
precious energy to run. This person is asserting that Mo’s opinion is for his benefit. He
is trying to discredit Mo’s opinion (saving energy).
CRITICAL THINKING
CHAPTERS 4 AND 5 (3 REVIEW)
ASSIGNMENT #2
PROFESSOR JULIE YOO
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Name:
Colin Markie
Good!
Grade: 101
Due TODAY at 8:00 pm. Please use the Turn-It-In link on our moodle site. As a favor to me,
please keep the questions in BLUE and put your answers in BLACK.
1. Deduction: Be prepared to answer these questions about validity and soundness. Provide
examples of your own. Do not use the examples in the lecture notes or textbook.
i. Can a VALID deductive argument have TRUE premises and a FALSE
conclusion? Explain your answer.
No. A VALID deductive argument cannot have TRUE premises and a
FALSE conclusion. A valid deductive argument requires that the
conclusion restates what the premises say. This means that in a valid
deductive argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be
true as well.
Good
ii. Can a VALID deductive argument have FALSE premises (or at least one
false premise) and a FALSE conclusion? Explain your answer.
Yes. A VALID deductive argument can have FALSE premises and a
FALSE conclusion. As long as the conclusion restates what the premises
Good
say, then the argument is valid, even if every statement is false.
Induction: Be prepared to answer these questions about inductive strength and cogency.
Provide examples of your own. Do not use the examples in the lecture notes or textbook.
i. Can a STRONG inductive argument have FALSE (or at least one false
premise)premises and a FALSE conclusion? Explain your answer.
Yes. A STRONG inductive argument can have FALSE premises and a
FALSE conclusion. As long as the new knowledge in the conclusion is
reasonable based on what the premises say, the argument is strong even if
the premises and conclusion are false statements. Good
ii. Can a WEAK inductive argument have TRUE premises and a TRUE
conclusion? Explain your answer.
Yes. A WEAK inductive argument can have TRUE premises and a TRUE
conclusion if the conclusion makes too big of a leap from the premises.
Although the conclusion may be true, it may not be closely related enough
Good
to the premises for the argument to be strong.
2. What is the definition of strength (strong argument)? How is the inductive notion of strength
analogous to the deductive notion of validity? And how is the inductive notion of cogency
analogous to the deductive notion of soundness?
A strong argument is an inductive argument in which the conclusion does not go far
beyond what the premises say, and it is highly unlikely for the conclusion to be false if the
premises are true. Strength and validity are similar in that they both mean that the conclusion
follows the premises. Strength and validity both refer to the structure of the argument, not
necessarily the truth of its statements. Cogency and soundness both require strength and
validity, respectively, in order to even be considered. Both cogent and sound arguments
require that all of an argument’s premises are true. Good
3. Come up with your own SOUND argument for the deductive argument of modus tollens:
If you are 21 or older, then you can legally buy alcohol. I cannot legally buy alcohol.
Therefore, I am not 21 or older.
Good
4. We can justify our beliefs by giving an argument (covered in chapter 3) or by giving direct
evidence. Direct evidence can come in one of two forms: one’s own observation and experiences, or an external source, like a person, the internet, newspapers, books, the many
forms of social media media, such as Twitter, Instagram, etc.. This question is about using
your own observation. Sometimes, personal experience is an unreliable source of
information. Of the six things listed in the lecture notes, which one is the hardest to assess
from the first person point of view?
Impairment is the hardest to identify in ourselves and assess on our own. All the other
impediments listed can be caught and prevented if we are diligent enough to think critically
about our own thought processes. Impairment, however, is most often caused by an outside
source and can make us literally unable to think clearly. When we are impaired in some way
(intoxicated or ill, for example), our brains do not function as they normally would, making it
much more difficult to judge claims critically, not matter how hard we might try. As long as
we are not impaired, it is possible for us to catch our own bad judgment if we put in an effort
to do so. good
5. When it comes to using the Internet, we use slightly different criteria for evaluating
reliability and expertise. Three reputable universities have posted guides for evaluating web
pages: one from UC Berkeley, one from Johns Hopkins University, and one from Cornell
University. Look at all three (they are also posted on our moodle site):
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html
http://guides.library.jhu.edu/evaluatinginformation
http://olinuris.library.cornell.edu/ref/research/webcrit.html
Identify five criteria common among the three university guidelines for using the Internet to
get reliable information (there is more than five, but five is sufficient for full credit).
1) Credible author
2) Current information
3) Links to other related resources
4) Works cited/bibliography
5) Objective, not biased
nice!
6) Reputable publisher
6. There has been a heated debate about whether GMOs (genetically modified foods) are
dangerous. Suppose you were asked to write an objective research paper the debate. How
would you handle the claims about the safety of GMOs made by Monsanto (a huge food
corporation)? Look at this website: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/foodsafety.aspx As a responsible researcher, would you just report what they say and leave it at
that? Why or why not? Use at least three of the guidelines from one the three university
guidelines posted above.
Excellent!
If I were to write an objective research paper about the debate over the safety of GMOs, I
would not refer to Monsanto’s website. Being one of the largest producers of GMOs, they are
obviously biased in saying that GMOs are safe to eat. If they were to even hint at the
possibility of GMOs being possibly unsafe, they would be shooting themselves in the foot
and losing consumers of their products. An article about GMOs on WebMD says that “the green light on market approval is left mostly to the companies creating the technology,” affirming that companies such as Monsanto are likely to be quite biased in their approval of
the safety of GMOs. Although this article does reference a few other organizations and recent
studies on GMOs, with links and footnotes, they are all supporting Monsanto’s position on the subject. Monsanto does not refer to any sources that have anything negative to say about
GMOs. Monsanto’s webpage would be a much better source for an objective research paper
if they brought up arguments against their position and then refuted them with evidence.
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/are-biotech-foods-safe-to-eat
7. Journalism is in the business of reporting the truth. Of course not all journalists are good or
honest, but to do a proper job, they follow a certain rule: use three independent sources that
corroborate the information. Why do the sources have to be independent?
Sources must be independent so that bias can be avoided. In order to report the objective
truth, journalists must refer to sources with various viewpoints. If multiple articles about a
topic come from the same author, or even the same publisher, it is likely that they each share
a similar viewpoint. One author is not likely going to write one article proving a certain claim
and another refuting it. Sources which are independent from one another are more likely to
present a wider range of opinions on a given topic.
good
8.
Define these terms:
Fallacy of Appeal to Tradition
Fallacy of Red Herring
Appeal to Tradition – A claim must be true because it has been traditionally believed to be true
for a long time. good
Red Herring – A completely irrelevant issue is brought up during an argument.
good
9. Carefully go through the Creationist Fallacies youtube video (broken into three parts). As
you will notice, the video first gives the definition of a fallacy, then presents a clip to
demonstrate the fallacy. For the following fallacies, explain how the clip exemplifies the
fallacy. Under the video on the youtube page, all the fallacies are listed and the time when
the fallacy is presented in the video. Some of the fallacies in the clips are kind of subtle, so
you might need to repeat them several times to catch the fallacy. Also, other clips are ironic;
they parody the fallacy being committed, so be careful.
a. Ad Hominem Fallacy (Actually, the clip also commits two other fallacies as well: the
fallacy of equivocation and the straw man fallacy. One extra credit point each for if
you explain how.)
good
Rather than criticizing what Darwin actually had to say, Ken Ham attacks Darwin
himself, discrediting him for being “racist.” Ken Ham commits the straw man fallacy as well as the equivocation fallacy by simplifying Darwin’s phrase, “the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” equating the word “races” to mean “human races,” thus claiming that Darwin must be racist because of this phrase.ok +2
b. False Dichotomy (Actually, the creepy kid begs the question! Another extra credit
point if you explain how.)
good
VenomFangX (the creepy kid’s username) claims that the only two possible explanations of how human existence relates to death are that “death came by man’s sin” or that “man came by death.” He then goes on to use the Bible as proof of the Bible being correct, which is the fallacy of begging the question. nice +1
10. Identify the fallacy and explain WHY you think it commits the fallacy. (Please note that
sometimes, more than one fallacy is committed; however, you need to identify only one to
get full credit.):
a. We can’t legalize gay marriage. If you let people of the same sex get married, then you’ll have to let people get married to their cats or dogs or maybe even their pet goldfish. And once that happens, cat and dogs will be able to get married to each
other, and surely that will completely undermine the institution of marriage.
Fallacy: Slippery Slope
Explanation: Assuming that taking the small step of legalizing gay marriage will
inevitably lead to the legalization of all these ridiculous animal marriages is an
outrageous exaggeration. Good
b. Mo: “I am the king.” Jo: “Wait, why do you get to be the king?”
Mo: “Because I’m wearing the crown.”
Jo: “Wait again, why do you get to wear the crown?”
Mo: “Because I am the king.
Fallacy: Begging the Question
Explanation: Mo’s reason for his conclusion (that he is the king) is the conclusion itself. He argues in a circle by saying that he is king because he wears the crown
because he is king... and so on.
Good
c. My company is been accused of dumping toxins near an elementary school. But is
that what we should be looking at? We should be more worried about the decline of
our public education system. Our children are performing worse than children of this
school 10 years ago. Clearly, the teachers are no doing their jobs if the children are
performing worse. If children aren’t learning, our country will not be competitive in the global market and our country will lose its ranking as a world power.
Fallacy: Red Herring
Explanation: All this information about the decline of the public education system is
completely unrelated to the issue of dumping toxins near an elementary school. Good
d. Jo says that we should legalize marijuana for cancer patients who undergo
chemotherapy. But do you really want to make it legal for just anyone to access any
hard drug? Just imagine everyone going to their local pharmacy to get cocaine,
heroin, and ecstacy. Our society would crumble! Jo should take back her proposal.
no - Straw man
Fallacy: Slippery Slope
Explanation: The arguer is assuming that by simply legalizing marijuana for certain
people, it will inevitably lead to dangerous drugs being legalized, which is an extreme
exaggeration.
e. Mo claims that we should save energy. But we can’t his claims seriously. After all, he owns several huge mansions homes. Big houses require a great deal of precious
energy to run. If he really thought that we should save energy, then he would live in a
much more modest house, but he doesn’t.
good
Fallacy: Appeal to the Person
Explanation: The arguer is attacking Mo himself, criticizing details about Mo’s personal life rather than criticizing details of Mo’s argument.
CRITICAL THINKING
CHAPTERS 4 AND 5 (3 REVIEW)
ASSIGNMENT #2
PROFESSOR JULIE YOO
Name: Natalie Kaczorek
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
grade: 101
Excellent work!
Due TODAY at 8:00 pm. Please use the Turn-It-In link on our moodle site. As a favor to me,
please keep the questions in BLUE and put your answers in BLACK.
1. Deduction: Be prepared to answer these questions about validity and soundness. Provide
examples of your own. Do not use the examples in the lecture notes or textbook.
• Validity: An argument is valid = It is impossible for all the premises to be true and the
conclusion false.
• Soundness: An argument is sound = The argument is valid and all premises are true.
i.
Can a VALID deductive argument have TRUE premises and a FALSE
conclusion? Explain your answer.
• NO,
it is impossible for a VALID deductive argument to have TRUE premises and a
FALSE conclusion. This is because if both premises are true, it is impossible for
them to lead to a false conclusion. In a Valid deductive argument, if both premises
are true, the conclusion is ALWAYS TRUE.
• I cannot provide an example, as it is IMPOSSIBLE.
Perfect!
ii. Can a VALID deductive argument have FALSE premises (or at least one
false premise) and a FALSE conclusion? Explain your answer.
• YES, it is possible for a VALID deductive argument have FALSE premises (or at
least one false premise) and a FALSE conclusion. This is particularly because if
both premises are false, evidently the conclusion is false as well. Take this
example for instance:
!
!
!
False Premises :!
False Conclusion:!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Valid
All cars can fly.
All cars are red.
All flying cars are red.
(unsound)
Good
Induction: Be prepared to answer these questions about inductive strength and cogency.
Provide examples of your own. Do not use the examples in the lecture notes or textbook.
Strength: An inductive argument is strong = It is improbable for all the premises to be true
and the conclusion false.
Cogency: An argument is cogent = The argument is strong and all of its premises are true.
i.
Can a STRONG inductive argument have FALSE (or at least one false
premise)premises and a FALSE conclusion? Explain your answer.
• YES, it is possible for a induction argument, to have a STRONG inductive argument
have FALSE (or at least one false premise)premises and a FALSE conclusion. Take
this example for instance:
!
!
!
!
!
False Premises :!
False Conclusion:!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Strong
Most professors are Canadian.
Our current Professor was born in Canada.
The next professor will be from Canada.
(uncogent)
Good!
ii. Can a WEAK inductive argument have TRUE premises and a TRUE
conclusion? Explain your answer.
• YES, it is possible for a induction argument, to have a WEAK inductive argument
have TRUE premises and a TRUE conclusion. Take this example for instance:
!
!
!
!
!
True Premises :!
True Conclusion:!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Weak
Some Professors like to hike.
My current Professor hikes.
My next professor will hike.
(uncogent)
Good
2. What is the definition of strength (strong argument)? How is the inductive notion of strength
analogous to the deductive notion of validity? And how is the inductive notion of cogency
analogous to the deductive notion of soundness?
• A strong argument is an inductive argument that succeeds in providing probable - but not
conclusive - support for its conclusion.
• The inductive notion of strength is analogous to the deductive notion of validity because both
work towards successfully providing conclusive support for their conclusions.
• The inductive notion of cogency is analogous to the deductive notion of soundness because a
cogent argument is defined as, a strong inductive argument with all true premises, while a
sound argument is defined as, a deductively valid argument that has true premises.
very nice!
3. Come up with your own SOUND argument for the deductive argument of modus tollens:
If P, the Q
-Q
-P
If you have a car, you will need gas.
You do not need gas.
Good
So, you do not have a car.
If it is raining, Chris will get wet.
Chris does not get wet.
So, it is not raining.
great!
4. We can justify our beliefs by giving an argument (covered in chapter 3) or by giving direct
evidence. Direct evidence can come in one of two forms: one’s own observation and
experiences, or an external source, like a person, the internet, newspapers, books, the many
forms of social media media, such as Twitter, Instagram, etc.. This question is about using
your own observation. Sometimes, personal experience is an unreliable source of
information. Of the six things listed in the lecture notes, which one is the hardest to assess
from the first person point of view?
• As
stated in our lecture notes, much of the evidence for a claim comes from one’s
own personal experience. Evidence gained from personal experience includes the
things you discover from your senses, and events you remember, and our judgement
involving the faculties of sensory observation and memory. But personal experience
is not always perfect. Thus, we have the principle of personal experience, which
indicates that, “we should accept the evidence of personal experience unless there
are good reasons to doubt the personal experience”.
• Our lecture notes go further in emphasizing that a number of things can impede the
reliability of the evidence gained from personal memory. It is fairly easy to identify
these when these impediments occur in other people. However, it is much harder
when we try to identify when they occur in ourselves.
• Some common factors that can raise doubts are impairment (stress, injury,
distraction, emotional upset), expectations, and our limited abilities in judging
probabilities (innumeracy). While some of the common mistakes we make in
evaluating claims are resisting contrary evidence, looking for confirming evidence,
and preferring available evidence.
• Of the six things listed in the lecture notes, I believe the hardest to asses from the
first person point of view is expectation. This is particularly due to the fact that we
need to be aware of how influential someone’s expectations can truly be, as stated in
our lecture notes. We often perceive what we want to perceive, or what we expect to
perceive, even when there is no input that justifies the perception. Therefore, with
expectations, we are often fooling ourselves, as we are not in the proper mind set to
make accurate and knowledgable conclusions. Conclusively, this inaccurate
measurement of data can distort our expectations, along with our memories, making
excellent!
it the hardest to asses in my eyes.
5. When it comes to using the Internet, we use slightly different criteria for evaluating reliability
and expertise. Three reputable universities have posted guides for evaluating web pages:
one from UC Berkeley, one from Johns Hopkins University, and one from Cornell
University. Look at all three (they are also posted on our moodle site):
• http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html
• http://guides.library.jhu.edu/evaluatinginformation
http://olinuris.library.cornell.edu/ref/research/webcrit.html
Identify five criteria common among the three university guidelines for using the Internet to
get reliable information (there is more than five, but five is sufficient for full credit).
•
After conducting a thorough research regarding guidelines for evaluating web pages from;
UC Berkeley, Johns Hopkins University, and Cornell University, I have listed the mains
points of each below to map my thoughts.
UC Berkeley
1. What can the URL tell you?
i. Is it somebody’s personal page?
ii. What type of domain does it come from?
iii.Is it published by an entity that makes sense?
2. Scan the perimeter of the page, looking for answers to these questions:
ii. “About us”
iii.“Philosophy”
iv.“Background”
v. “Biography”
vi.Who wrote the page?
vii.Is the page dated?
viii.What are the authors credentials on this subject?
3. Look for indicators of quality information:
iii.Are the sources documented with footnotes or links?
iv.If reproduced information (from another source) is it complete, not altered, not
fake or forged?
v. Are there links to other sources on the topic?
4. What do others say?
iv.Find out what other web pages link to the page.
v. Does the page listed in one or more reputable directories or pages?
vi.Look up the title or publisher or author in google or yahoo!
5. Does it all add up?
v. Why was the page on the web?
vi.Is it ironic?
vii.Is this as credible and useful as the resources (books, journal, articles, etc.)
available in print or online through a library?
Johns Hopkins University
1. Authorship
i. Is the document signed?
ii. Can I get more information on the author by linking from this page?
iii.Was there information about the author on this page?
2. Publishing Body
ii. Can you find the websites homepage by deleting all the information in the URL?
iii.Is the page a part of somebody’s personal account?
3. Currency of the Document
iii.Does it use a caption?
iv.Does it include relevant information within the document?
v. Is the statistical sources listed in a bibliography to the page?
Cornell University
1. Accuracy
i. Does the page list the author and institution that published the page?
ii. Does the page list a way of contacting the author and institution?
2. Authority
ii. Does the page list the author credentials?
iii.(.edu, .gov, .org, or .net)?
3. Objectivity
iii.Does the page provide accurate information with limited advertising?
iv.Is the page objective in presenting the information?
4. Currency
iv. Is the page current and updated regularly?
v. Are all of the links up to date?
5. Coverage
v. Can you view the information properly, not limited to fees, browser technology, or
software requirement?
Despite the fact that all of the listed points above are immensely important in the process of
evaluating reliability and expertise, we were asked to narrow it down significantly. It is
evident through the list that I have created, that among all three university guidelines, there
are numerous similarities. Five distinct similarities that I found stood out to be most
important in all three universities included:
1.
Domain type?
2.
Are the Authors/Publishers credible?
3.
Where sources referenced and used effectively?
4.
Are all of the links, as well as the site in general, up to date?
5.
Can you locate the site/ home page by using a general search site, such as
google or yahoo?
This is amazing! Wonderful!
6. There has been a heated debate about whether GMOs (genetically modified foods) are
dangerous. Suppose you were asked to write an objective research paper the debate. How
would you handle the claims about the safety of GMOs made by Monsanto (a huge food
corporation)? Look at this website: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/foodsafety.aspx As a responsible researcher, would you just report what they say and leave it at
that? Why or why not? Use at least three of the guidelines from one the three university
guidelines posted above.
• If
I were asked to write an objective research paper and debate, regarding the highly
controversial topic of whether GMOS (genetically modified foods) are dangerous, I
would handle the claims about the safety in the following ways. First, I would
follow the guidelines presented in the question above, some of which include:
• Domain type?
• Are the Authors/Publishers credible?
• Where sources referenced and used effectively?
• Are all of the links, as well as the site in general, up to date?
• Can you locate the site/ home page by using a general search
site, such as google or
yahoo?
• After
ensuring the source is reliable, I would stem a vast majority of my research
from this huge corporate, as it is a trusted and reliable source. However, this would
be far from my only method of research if I were to conduct an objective research
paper and debate.
• As a responsible researcher, I would not just report what they say and leave it at
that. This is particularly because that would be a biased sample. It is evident that this
company wants to succeed, and evident by researching their website in depth that
they have incorporated sufficient information to do so. However, as a responsible
researcher, just like a journalist, I would take information from three independent
sources, rather than only this one website. This is particularly because generating
information from a variety of sources allows us to learn the positives and negatives
some companies choose to leave out, for personal benefit.
Excellent - very thoughtful
7. Journalism is in the business of reporting the truth. Of course not all journalists are good or
honest, but to do a proper job, they follow a certain rule: use three independent sources that
corroborate the information. Why do the sources have to be independent?
After conducting a thorough web-based research, I came across a very beneficial journal entry,
“Principles of Journalism”. This journal entry effectively emphasized 9 important principles of
success for journalism, listed below:
1. Journalisms first obligation is the truth.
2. Its first loyalty is to its citizens.
3. Its essence is a discipline of verification
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant
8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional
9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience
It elaborated on the fact that sources have to be independent because, “Independence is an
underlying requirement of journalism, a cornerstone of its reliability. Independence of spirit and
mind, rather than neutrality, is the principle journalists must keep in focus. While editorialists
and commentators are not neutral, the source of their credibility is still their accuracy,
intellectual fairness and ability to inform–not their devotion to a certain group or outcome. In
our independence, however, we must avoid any tendency to stray into arrogance, elitism,
isolation or nihilism.”
Overall, journalists are people we trust. By having multiple independent sources, we as citizens
are able to give journalists that trust. For example, if there was a tragic national accident, we
would expect the journalist to go through the efforts of referencing at least three unconnected
people, organizations, entities, etc. that had been effective witnesses of the accident, rather than
asking people what they has heard by word of mouth. As citizens, we look up to journalists in
times of needed information and guidance. It is important for us to trust and believe what they
have to say. By incorporating independent sources, we are capable of giving that trust.
Wow, most impressive!
8. Define these terms:
• Fallacy of Appeal to Tradition
• Fallacy of Red Herring
Appeal to Tradition = The fallacy of arguing that a claim must be true just because
it’s part of a tradition. good
Red Herring = The fallacy of deliberately raising an irrelevant issue during an
argument. The basic pattern is to put forth a claim and then couple it with
additional claims that may seem to support it but in fact are mere distractions.
good
9. Carefully go through the Creationist Fallacies youtube video (broken into three parts). As
you will notice, the video first gives the definition of a fallacy, then presents a clip to
demonstrate the fallacy. For the following fallacies, explain how the clip exemplifies the
fallacy. Under the video on the youtube page, all the fallacies are listed and the time when
the fallacy is presented in the video. Some of the fallacies in the clips are kind of subtle, so
you might need to repeat them several times to catch the fallacy. Also, other clips are ironic;
they parody the fallacy being committed, so be careful.
a. Ad Hominem Fallacy (Actually, the clip also commits two other fallacies as well: the
fallacy of equivocation and the straw man fallacy. One extra credit point each for if
you explain how.)
• Appeal to the Person = (Ad Hominem = “to the man”) = The fallacy of rejecting
a claim by criticizing the person who makes it rather than the claim itself. It
consists of an attack against the person making an argument instead of addressing
the substance of the argument itself.
• This is an effective example of The Ad Hominem Fallacy because
Ken Ham speaks regarding Charles Darwin’s book, “On the Origin
of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of
Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”, and bluntly states, the
Charles Darwin was a racist, and his evolutionary philosophy was
inherently a racist philosophy. Therefore, he is attacking against
Charles Darwin, rather than making an argument himself. This can
also pose as an example of The Straw Man Fallacy in the sense that
he is distorting, weakening, and oversimplifying Charles Darwin’s
position so it can be more easily attacked or refuted.
Nicely explained!
+2
b. False Dichotomy (Actually, the creepy kid begs the question! Another extra credit
point if you explain how.)
• In
a False Dichotomy, two mutually exclusive options are set up as the only possible
choices. Therefore, if one is true, the other must be untrue. The fallacy is that the
options may not be mutually exclusive (or even related) and that other choices may
exist.
• The video depicts a classic Evolution vs. Religion False Dichotomy.
• The creepy kid states that there are two mutually exclusive options: (1) The Bible
says that death came by mans sin, and (2) Evolution says that man came by death.
However, only one of the exclusive options is correct, as indicated by the Fallacy of
False Dichotomy, because both the Bible and Evolution have literal opposite
meanings.
• The unacceptable premises of “Begging the Question” is defined as the fallacy of
attempting to establish the conclusion of an argument by using that conclusion as a
premises. (Also called arguing in circles). The creepy kid is actually begging the
question in the sense that he continues to go back and forth in a circle like motion,
almost confusing the audience. First he claims that the bible says death came by
man sin and next he goes into how evolution says man came by death, and shares
that they depict quite a contrast. The creepy kid uses the conclusion of death as the
main premises, and then debates between the bible versus evolution. He later comes
to a conclusion, after rambling in circles, that only one is write because the bible and
evolution have literal opposite meanings. Good + 1
10. Identify the fallacy and explain WHY you think it commits the fallacy. (Please note that
sometimes, more than one fallacy is committed; however, you need to identify only one to
get full credit.):
a. We can’t legalize gay marriage. If you let people of the same sex get married, then
you’ll have to let people get married to their cats or dogs or maybe even their pet
goldfish. And once that happens, cat and dogs will be able to get married to each
other, and surely that will completely undermine the institution of marriage.
Good
Fallacy: Slippery Slope
Explanation: An argument commits the slippery slope fallacy when it claims that
taking a certain step will inevitably lead to a dire conclusion. This example
demonstrates those actions because it states that “if you let people of the same sex get
married”... “then you’ll have to let people get married to their cats or dogs or maybe
even their pet goldfish. And once that happens, cat and dogs will be able to get
married to each other, and surely that will completely undermine the institution of
marriage.”
b. Mo: “I am the king.”
Jo: “Wait, why do you get to be the king?”
Mo: “Because I’m wearing the crown.”
Jo: “Wait again, why do you get to wear the crown?”
Mo: “Because I am the king.
begging the question - yes
Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance & Begging the Question
Explanation:
Appeal to Ignorance = An argument commits the fallacy of appeal to ignorance when
it argues for a claim from the very lack of evidence. This example is arguing for the
claim that Mo is the King, and his mere evidence is that “he is wearing the crown”,
which is clearly not sufficient.
Begging the Question = An argument commits the fallacy of begging the question
when it presupposes the truth of its conclusions, rather than independently
establishing proving the conclusion. This example is continues to refer back Mo’s
claim, “I am the King”, regardless of the questions asked, he replies, “because I am
the King”, which presupposes the truth of its conclusions, rather than independently
establishing evidence for the conclusion.
c. My company is been accused of dumping toxins near an elementary school. But is
that what we should be looking at? We should be more worried about the decline of
our public education system. Our children are performing worse than children of this
school 10 years ago. Clearly, the teachers are no doing their jobs if the children are
performing worse. If children aren’t learning, our country will not be competitive in
the global market and our country will lose its ranking as a world power.
Fallacy: Red Herring
good
Explanation: An argument commits the red herring when it raises an irrelevant issue
during an argument to throw the opponent off the topic under discussion. In this
example, the topic of discussion initiated as, “My company is been accused of
dumping toxins near an elementary school.” However, by means of red herring, the
individual involved began referencing students lack of performance in school, and the
poor work and skills provided by the teachers. By doing so he raised an irrelevant
topic that did not relate, to throw the opponent off during the discussion.
d. Jo says that we should legalize marijuana for cancer patients who undergo
chemotherapy. But do you really want to make it legal for just anyone to access any
hard drug? Just imagine everyone going to their local pharmacy to get cocaine,
heroin, and ecstacy. Our society would crumble! Jo should take back her proposal.
straw man - 2
Fallacy: Composition
Explanation: An argument commits the fallacy of composition when one assumes that
just because the parts of a thing have a certain feature, the thing itself has that feature.
This specific example demonstrates The Fallacy of Composition in the sense that Jo
assumes that because cancer patients whom are undergoing chemotherapy will
receive legalized marijuana, everyone will have easy access for heavy drugs, such as
cocaine, heroin, and ecstacy.
e. Mo claims that we should save energy. But we can’t take his claims seriously. After
all, he owns several huge mansions homes. Big houses require a great deal of
precious energy to run. If he really thought that we should save energy, then he
would live in a much more modest house, but he doesn’t.
good
Fallacy: Appeal to the Person
Explanation: An argument commits the ad hominem fallacy when it discredits a claim
by attacking its author. This specific example demonstrates The Fallacy of Appeal to
The Person in the sense that despite Mo’s positive claim to save energy, he was
negatively brought down by claims that his house was too big. As stated, “if he really
thought that we should save energy, then he would live in a much more modest house,
but he doesn’t.”
CRITICAL THINKING
CHAPTERS 4 AND 5 (3 REVIEW)
XXXXXXXXXXXX
Name: Lea Skopets
XXXXXXXXXXXX
ASSIGNMENT #2
PROFESSOR JULIE YOO
Grade: 103
Excellent!
Due TODAY at 8:00 pm. Please use the Turn-It-In link on our moodle site. As a favor to me,
please keep the questions in BLUE and put your answers in BLACK.
1. Deduction: Be prepared to answer these questions about validity and soundness. Provide
examples of your own. Do not use the examples in the lecture notes or textbook.
i. Can a VALID deductive argument have TRUE premises and a FALSE
conclusion? Explain your answer.
No, there cannot be a valid argument with all true premises and a false conclusion because valid
arguments utilize a “correct way of reasoning.” Deductively valid arguments are truth-preserving
– the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. It is impossible to draw
a false conclusion from a valid argument with true premises.
Good!
ii. Can a VALID deductive argument have FALSE premises (or at least one false
premise) and a FALSE conclusion? Explain your answer.
Yes, a valid deductive argument can have false premises and a false conclusion. In fact, the only
way a deductive argument with a false conclusion can be valid is if it has false premises. This is
because in a deductively valid argument, the conclusion must follow logically from the premises.
In a valid argument with false premises, the conclusion that logically follows the premises must
also be false. If the conclusion was true, the argument would not be valid. It is important to note
that this type of valid deductive argument is not a sound argument because the premises are not
true.
Good
Induction: Be prepared to answer these questions about inductive strength and cogency.
Provide examples of your own. Do not use the examples in the lecture notes or textbook.
i. Can a STRONG inductive argument have FALSE (or at least one false
premise)premises and a FALSE conclusion? Explain your answer.
Yes, a strong inductive argument can have false premises and a false conclusion because
inductive arguments do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. According to the lecture notes,
a strong inductive argument's conclusion “follows from its premises with a high degree of probability,” meaning that in a strong argument that has false premises, the conclusion is very likely to be false as well, because it would be based off false reasons.
Good
ii. Can a WEAK inductive argument have TRUE premises and a TRUE conclusion?
Explain your answer.
There can be a weak argument with all true premises and conclusion, it would just be an
uncogent argument. This type of argument would have a true premises and a true conclusion, but
the conclusion would not be supported “with a high degree of probability” by the premises. The conclusion might not even have anything to do with the premises, but could still be a true
statement. Just because the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises does not mean
the conclusion can't be true, it just means that the argument is weak. Therefore it is possible to
have a weak inductive argument with true premises and a true conclusion. Good
2. What is the definition of strength (strong argument)? How is the inductive notion of strength
analogous to the deductive notion of validity? And how is the inductive notion of cogency
analogous to the deductive notion of soundness?
According to PCT, a strong argument is “An inductive argument that succeeds in providing
probable - but not conclusive - support for its conclusion.” Inductive strength is analogous to deductive validity because in both cases, these terms mean that the conclusion has the highest
amount of support that it can get from the premises, whether it be conclusive support or probable
support, depending on the type of argument. Inductive cogency is analogous to deductive
soundness because in both cases, not only do both conclusions have the highest amount of
support that it can get from the premises, but the premises MUST be true, indicating that the
conclusion is conclusively or very likely to be true, again depending on the type of argument. Good
3. Come up with your own SOUND argument for the deductive argument of modus tollens:
If the door is locked, then we can't get inside. We can get inside. Therefore the door is unlocked.
4. We can justify our beliefs by giving an argument (covered in chapter 3) or by giving direct
evidence. Direct evidence can come in one of two forms: one’s own observation and experiences, or an external source, like a person, the internet, newspapers, books, the many
forms of social media media, such as Twitter, Instagram, etc.. This question is about using
your own observation. Sometimes, personal experience is an unreliable source of
information. Of the six things listed in the lecture notes, which one is the hardest to assess
from the first person point of view?
I think that looking for confirming evidence is the hardest to assess from the first person point of
view. This is because humans are naturally self-centered, we only see the world from our own
point of view, which leads to self-interested thinking. Humans also do not like to be wrong, we
like to be right about everything to make us feel better about ourselves. Because of this, humans
have a “tendency to believe things that already conform to our opinions” instead of objectively looking at all the information and keeping an open mind to the possibility of being wrong
good
(lecture notes).
5. When it comes to using the Internet, we use slightly different criteria for evaluating
reliability and expertise. Three reputable universities have posted guides for evaluating web
pages: one from UC Berkeley, one from Johns Hopkins University, and one from Cornell
University. Look at all three (they are also posted on our moodle site):
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html
http://guides.library.jhu.edu/evaluatinginformation
http://olinuris.library.cornell.edu/ref/research/webcrit.html
Identify five criteria common among the three university guidelines for using the Internet to
get reliable information (there is more than five, but five is sufficient for full credit).
1. Author's credentials
good
2.
3.
4.
5.
currency of information
publisher
point of view/objectivity
referrals/links
good
6. There has been a heated debate about whether GMOs (genetically modified foods) are
dangerous. Suppose you were asked to write an objective research paper the debate. How
would you handle the claims about the safety of GMOs made by Monsanto (a huge food
corporation)? Look at this website:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/foodsafety.aspx As a responsible researcher, would you just report what they say and leave it at
that? Why or why not? Use at least three of the guidelines from one the three university
guidelines posted above.
I would not believe any claims about the safety of GMOs made by Monsanto because Monsanto
is one of the largest companies in the world that uses GMOs. This means that they are not
objective; everything they advertise on their website supports the use and safety of GMOs, even
if they are not safe, so that their business can continue to make money. Monsanto is not credible
as a source for information on GMOs because GMOs are present in almost all of their products,
so obviously their point of view on GMOs is biased. The publisher of the website is Monsanto
Company; this means that Monsanto wrote, edited, and published this page on food safety. With
no outside, unbiased groups contributing to this article, Monsanto can easily get away with
good
skewing the information on GMOs.
7. Journalism is in the business of reporting the truth. Of course not all journalists are good or
honest, but to do a proper job, they follow a certain rule: use three independent sources that
corroborate the information. Why do the sources have to be independent?
Independent sources are necessary to validate claims because they are an un-biased
representation of information. Independent sources are not affiliated with any other groups, and
have not based their information on anything else - they are reporting on information or an event
first-hand. An independent study will avoid using rhetoric, and present the information as is,
while a study funded by a group will often be biased in order to achieve the goals of the group.
For instance, if an author used three dependent sources, they could all depend upon the same
source, which could trick the reader into thinking multiple sources had verified the information,
when in reality only one had made the claims. Organizations take advantage of this confusion
through owning multiple news outlets, and can have them all report the same information,
making an inaccurate claim seem true. Monsanto is an example of an organization that uses this
technique. Independent sources are free from this control, and therefore are more likely to
present factual information. Using 3 independent sources instead of just 1 is a good way to
good - nice!
ensure that the information is not being distorted in any way.
8.
Define these terms:
Fallacy of Appeal to Tradition - According to PCT, “the appeal to tradition is arguing that a claim must be true just because it's part of a tradition” (175). good
However, traditions should not be accepted or rejected without good reason.
Fallacy of Red Herring - According to PCT, red herring is “the deliberate raising of an irrelevant issue during an argument” to distract from the issue at hand,
good
usually because of a lack of sufficient evidence (181).
9. Carefully go through the Creationist Fallacies youtube video (broken into three parts). As
you will notice, the video first gives the definition of a fallacy, then presents a clip to
demonstrate the fallacy. For the following fallacies, explain how the clip exemplifies the
fallacy. Under the video on the youtube page, all the fallacies are listed and the time when
the fallacy is presented in the video. Some of the fallacies in the clips are kind of subtle, so
you might need to repeat them several times to catch the fallacy. Also, other clips are ironic;
they parody the fallacy being committed, so be careful.
a. Ad Hominem Fallacy (Actually, the clip also commits two other fallacies as well: the
fallacy of equivocation and the straw man fallacy. One extra credit point each for if
you explain how.)
This clip exemplifies the ad hominem fallacy because the argument attacks Darwin personally
instead of attacking his argument, his theory of evolution. The clip attacks Darwin's use of the
word “race” - which wasn't intended to mean the color of someone's skin, it was intended to
good
mean “species” - rather than the actual content of Darwin's theory.
This clip exemplifies the fallacy of equivocation because the word “race” is used in two different senses – Darwin meant it as “species”, but the person in the clip takes Darwin's use of the word yes + 1
race as Darwin being a racist.
This clip exemplifies the straw man fallacy by distorting Darwin's theory of evolution to make it
seem like a racist theory by a racist man, when in fact that is not the case. But by making Darwin
yes + 1
seem racist, people are much less inclined to believe his theory.
b. False Dichotomy (Actually, the creepy kid begs the question! Another extra credit
point if you explain how.)
This clip exemplifies the fallacy of false dichotomy because the creepy kid says that there are
only 2 options – evolution and religion. He says “only one is right because they are diametrically
opposites” and doesn't suggest any other possibilities other than evolution or religion. good
This clip is an example of begging the question because the creepy kid's logic is circular. He uses
the premise as the conclusion without giving any real reasons. He repeats that evolution is the
opposite of the bible without giving solid evidence. ok + 1
10. Identify the fallacy and explain WHY you think it commits the fallacy. (Please note that
sometimes, more than one fallacy is committed; however, you need to identify only one to
get full credit.):
a. We can’t legalize gay marriage. If you let people of the same sex get married, then you’ll have to let people get married to their cats or dogs or maybe even their pet goldfish. And once that happens, cat and dogs will be able to get married to each
other, and surely that will completely undermine the institution of marriage.
good
Fallacy: slippery slope
Explanation: This argument is an example of the slippery slope fallacy because it
argues that taking a particular step – legalizing gay marriage – inevitably will lead to
further steps – people will get married to their pets, and then the pets will get married
to each other. According to PCT, “it's fallacious when there is no good reason to think that doing action A will actually result in undesirable action D” (190).
b. Mo: “I am the king.” Jo: “Wait, why do you get to be the king?”
Mo: “Because I’m wearing the crown.”
Jo: “Wait again, why do you get to wear the crown?”
Mo: “Because I am the king.
good
Fallacy: begging the question
Explanation: This is an example of begging the question because the argument goes
in a circle. The argument attempts to establish a conclusion – Mo gets to wear the
crown – by using that conclusion as a premise – Mo gets to wear the crown because
he is the king, and he is the king because he wears the crown.
c. My company is been accused of dumping toxins near an elementary school. But is
that what we should be looking at? We should be more worried about the decline of
our public education system. Our children are performing worse than children of this
school 10 years ago. Clearly, the teachers are no doing their jobs if the children are
performing worse. If children aren’t learning, our country will not be competitive in the global market and our country will lose its ranking as a world power.
good
Fallacy: red herring
Explanation: This argument is an example of red herring because the claims are
completely irrelevant to the conclusion. The argument tries to distract from the
dumping of toxins by bringing up the irrelevant issue of the public education system.
d. Jo says that we should legalize marijuana for cancer patients who undergo
chemotherapy. But do you really want to make it legal for just anyone to access any
hard drug? Just imagine everyone going to their local pharmacy to get cocaine,
heroin, and ecstasy. Our society would crumble! Jo should take back her proposal.
good
Fallacy: straw man
Explanation: This argument is an example of the fallacy of straw man because claim
X – marijuana should be legalized for cancer patients – was restated so it became
claim Y – everyone will be able to get coke, heroine, and ecstasy from the local
pharmacy – which is an absurd claim. Then claim Y was attacked, and it was
concluded that claim X is unfounded. In other words, the argument distorts the
opponent's position so it could be refuted more easily.
e. Mo claims that we should save energy. But we can’t his claims seriously. After all, he owns several huge mansions homes. Big houses require a great deal of precious
energy to run. If he really thought that we should save energy, then he would live in a
much more modest house, but he doesn’t.
excellent!
Fallacy: tu quoque
Explanation: This argument is an example of the ad hominem fallacy of tu quoque
because it is put forth as a charge of hypocrisy. In other words, Mo claims X – that
we should save energy – but Mo doesn't practice/live by her claim herself, so X has to
be false.
CRITICAL THINKING
CHAPTERS 4 AND 5 (3 REVIEW)
Text
ASSIGNMENT #2
PROFESSOR JULIE YOO
Name: XXXXXXXXXX
Matt
Yazzetta
XXXXXXXXX
Grade: 102
Excellent!
Due TODAY at 8:00 pm. Please use the Turn-It-In link on our moodle site. As a favor to me,
please keep the questions in BLUE and put your answers in BLACK.
1. Deduction: Be prepared to answer these questions about validity and soundness. Provide
examples of your own. Do not use the examples in the lecture notes or textbook.
i. Can a VALID deductive argument have TRUE premises and a FALSE
conclusion? Explain your answer.
No. By definition, it is not possible for the conclusion of a valid argument to be false when its
premises have proven to be true. good
ii. Can a VALID deductive argument have FALSE premises (or at least one
false premise) and a FALSE conclusion? Explain your answer.
Yes, so long as the conclusion arises logically from the premises. For example:
Argument (ii.)
Premise (1): Every US dollar bill features the image of a computer scientist.
Premise (2): The image of T.S. Eliot is on the front of the U.S. one dollar bill.
Conclusion: Therefore, T.S. Eliot was a computer scientist.
good - nice example!
Induction: Be prepared to answer these questions about inductive strength and cogency.
Provide examples of your own. Do not use the examples in the lecture notes or textbook.
i. Can a STRONG inductive argument have FALSE (or at least one false
premise)premises and a FALSE conclusion? Explain your answer.
Yes. For example:
Argument (i.)
Premise (1): Most members of the club are English majors.
Premise (2): The latest member to join the club is an English major.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is likely the next member to join the club will be an English major.
(Assume that the club is actually composed primarily of students majoring in journalism.) good
ii. Can a WEAK inductive argument have TRUE premises and a TRUE
conclusion? Explain your answer.
Yes. For example:
Argument (ii.)
Premise (1): A few basketball players that have graduated from the university have gone on
to win an NBA championship.
Premise (2): The last team that won the championship had a graduate from the university.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is likely the next team to win the championship will have a
graduate from the university.
(Assume that all statements here are true. Despite the truth of its statements, the argument is
weak because it claims only “a few” players in supporting its conclusion.)
good
2. What is the definition of strength (strong argument)? How is the inductive notion of strength
analogous to the deductive notion of validity? And how is the inductive notion of cogency
analogous to the deductive notion of soundness?
Strength is a quality of an inductive argument which provides highly probable evidence to
support its conclusion. Strength is analogous to validity since both of these terms describe how
the premises of an argument lend credence to the conclusion as being true. A valid deductive
argument is one that has a conclusion which cannot be false if its premises are true.
Cogency, the state of an inductive argument being strong and built from only true statements, is
analogous to soundness in deductive arguments, which are valid and built from only true
statements.
good
3. Come up with your own SOUND argument for the deductive argument of modus tollens:
Argument (MT)
Premise (1): If you have a job, you are employed.
Premise (2): You do not have a job.
Conclusion: You are not employed.
good
4. We can justify our beliefs by giving an argument (covered in chapter 3) or by giving direct
evidence. Direct evidence can come in one of two forms: one’s own observation and
experiences, or an external source, like a person, the internet, newspapers, books, the many
forms of social media media, such as Twitter, Instagram, etc.. This question is about using
your own observation. Sometimes, personal experience is an unreliable source of
information. Of the six things listed in the lecture notes, which one is the hardest to assess
from the first person point of view?
Of the six problems of reliable observation outlined in the lecture notes, the hardest to assess is
expectation. As the notes claim, “[w]e often perceive what we want to perceive.” Being able to acknowledge what those things are can be extremely difficult, particularly when we do not want
to admit those things for fear of what they might say about us. One must be particularly careful
when relying upon memory, since expectation can heavily influence, if not outright distort, what
we believe our senses have encountered. This can be discomforting since people want to be able
to trust themselves and their experiences. Thus, some might be led to denying that their
expectations have any effect on their present and past.
good
5. When it comes to using the Internet, we use slightly different criteria for evaluating
reliability and expertise. Three reputable universities have posted guides for evaluating web
pages: one from UC Berkeley, one from Johns Hopkins University, and one from Cornell
University. Look at all three (they are also posted on our moodle site):
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html
http://guides.library.jhu.edu/evaluatinginformation
http://olinuris.library.cornell.edu/ref/research/webcrit.html
Identify five criteria common among the three university guidelines for using the Internet to
get reliable information (there is more than five, but five is sufficient for full credit).
1. Review the URL and consider the information available, namely, the entity publishing the
website (is the publisher well-known, reputable? – e.g. www.nytimes.com; can a bias be
expected? – e.g. www.creationists.org).
2. Investigate the authorship of the webpage, looking specifically for the credentials outlined in
an “About Us” or “Biography” type of page. Consider if the author is qualified by these credentials and if the information being sought out might be better located on a different website.
3. Check for currency of information, looking for any kind of note identifying when the page was
last updated. Consider if seeking out a more current source would be best given the information
being sought out.
4. Check for clarity and transparency in documentation of sources, looking for links to other
webpages where information was taken or footnotes. Take the time to ensure these links and
notes are functional and refer to existing material (also consider the sources that are cited and
investigate to see if they support any kind of bias).
5. Use some personal judgment when visiting a webpage. If one’s experience of a website raises flags, there is probably a reason for those suspicions. It will probably be obvious if the website is
a mask for advertising, for instance.
excellent!
6. There has been a heated debate about whether GMOs (genetically modified foods) are
dangerous. Suppose you were asked to write an objective research paper the debate. How
would you handle the claims about the safety of GMOs made by Monsanto (a huge food
corporation)? Look at this website: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/foodsafety.aspx As a responsible researcher, would you just report what they say and leave it at
that? Why or why not? Use at least three of the guidelines from one the three university
guidelines posted above.
No. Reporting what Monsanto has to say for themselves on their own website is not responsible
research for an academic paper. Firstly, consulting a single source is never acceptable for the
purposes of presenting a research paper. Research involves the corroboration of facts which
requires more than one source to accomplish. As for observations based on the university
guidelines, it should perhaps be noted first that the webpage offers very little in the way of
statistical data or scientific explanation outside of what the corporation presents in its own voice.
For example, the attempt to prove the absence of long term effects from GMOs is assigned to a
single report and a “literature review.” Why these sources should be trusted, let alone who they are from, is left uncertain. Since this is the webpage of a major corporation, we can assume that
all content on the linked page has been carefully worded and designed by professionals who have
been paid to present Monsanto in the best possible light (these “frequently asked questions” themselves have been engineered for a graceful response on Monsanto’s part). Finally, there are few links and no footnotes offering the viewer information on where to look to find out more on
the subjects addressed. The individual visiting the webpage is generally “isolated” inside of it and is therefore responsible for making the effort to investigate the claims for him or herself,
which should be considered reason enough to do so.
excellent
7. Journalism is in the business of reporting the truth. Of course not all journalists are good or
honest, but to do a proper job, they follow a certain rule: use three independent sources that
corroborate the information. Why do the sources have to be independent?
The value of an independent source is that it is a source which one can rely on to serve the
information as much as possible and the individual, group, corporation, etc. as little as possible.
In other words, the facts are presented as closely to “as is” as they can be and are not slanted or good!
adjusted in a manner that makes one entity look better or worse.
8.
Define these terms:
Fallacy of Appeal to Tradition
A fallacy which insists that a claim is true (or false) based on a historical or customary
precedent. If someone argues that for centuries there was no restriction placed on public
prayer and therefore none should be put in place now, that person has committed this
particular fallacy.
good
Fallacy of Red Herring
A fallacy which deliberately redirects attention from one issue to a different, likely irrelevant
one. As an example: “I have been asked to stand before the committee today and speak to the
allegation of theft charged against me. I believe that it is important to first understand that, in this
day and age, the quality of produce that ends up on the American dinner table should be looked
at with extreme scrutiny.” The quality of produce has nothing to do with arguing against the
allegations of theft; these comments are meant to distract from the true issue at hand to avoid
good
dealing with it.
9. Carefully go through the Creationist Fallacies youtube video (broken into three parts). As
you will notice, the video first gives the definition of a fallacy, then presents a clip to
demonstrate the fallacy. For the following fallacies, explain how the clip exemplifies the
fallacy. Under the video on the youtube page, all the fallacies are listed and the time when
the fallacy is presented in the video. Some of the fallacies in the clips are kind of subtle, so
you might need to repeat them several times to catch the fallacy. Also, other clips are ironic;
they parody the fallacy being committed, so be careful.
a. Ad Hominem Fallacy (Actually, the clip also commits two other fallacies as well: the
fallacy of equivocation and the straw man fallacy. One extra credit point each for if
you explain how.)
Ken Ham misinterprets the title of Darwin’s famous text to denounce him as a racist, explaining “races” in its contemporary usage as opposed to the one that would have been acknowledged in 19th century (meaning “species”). Accordingly, Ham is criticizing Darwin and not his theory, so he has committed the ad hominem fallacy.
good
The fallacy of equivocation is committed by Ham in equivocating the word “races” by changing the sense of the original meaning (“species”) to an entirely different one (a population). The straw man fallacy is committed by presenting Darwin’s theory as a “racist theory” which would make people far more willing to decry it since calling it a “racist theory” suggests its objective is
to advance prejudice.
nice! +2
b. False Dichotomy (Actually, the creepy kid begs the question! Another extra credit
point if you explain how.)
The presenter explains death in two possible senses, one as coming from man’s sin (based on the Bible) and with the other man coming from death (based on evolution). He explains these
differing explanations as a “stark contrast” in which, as being “diametrically opposite,” it is proposed that only one can be true. The false dichotomy is the implication that there are no other
good
options besides the two he has proposed.
10. Identify the fallacy and explain WHY you think it commits the fallacy. (Please note that
sometimes, more than one fallacy is committed; however, you need to identify only one to
get full credit.):
a. We can’t legalize gay marriage. If you let people of the same sex get married, then you’ll have to let people get married to their cats or dogs or maybe even their pet
goldfish. And once that happens, cat and dogs will be able to get married to each
other, and surely that will completely undermine the institution of marriage.
good
Fallacy: Slippery slope
Explanation: The argument is presenting a dire conclusion as a necessary consequence of
permitting a single thing. In this case, it is being proposed that if same-sex marriages are
permitted, eventually all restrictions to marriage will be lifted as an outcome. There is no
evidence offered to actually suggest that is a guarantee, let alone a reasonable argument to have
made.
b. Mo: “I am the king.” Jo: “Wait, why do you get to be the king?”
Mo: “Because I’m wearing the crown.”
Jo: “Wait again, why do you get to wear the crown?”
Mo: “Because I am the king.
good
Fallacy: Begging the question
Explanation: Mo’s argument is circular in that two independent claims justify one another, but those claims alone are not logically supported.
c. My company is been accused of dumping toxins near an elementary school. But is
that what we should be looking at? We should be more worried about the decline of
our public education system. Our children are performing worse than children of this
school 10 years ago. Clearly, the teachers are no doing their jobs if the children are
performing worse. If children aren’t learning, our country will not be competitive in the global market and our country will lose its ranking as a world power.
Fallacy: Red herring good
Explanation: Instead of dealing with the issue at hand (the dumping of toxins near an elementary
school), the spokesperson diverts the focus of the statement to a topic that is irrelevant in this
situation (the quality of public education) likely in order to attempt to spare the company’s reputation.
d. Jo says that we should legalize marijuana for cancer patients who undergo
chemotherapy. But do you really want to make it legal for just anyone to access any
hard drug? Just imagine everyone going to their local pharmacy to get cocaine,
heroin, and ecstacy. Our society would crumble! Jo should take back her proposal.
good
Fallacy: Straw man
Explanation: The speaker is distorting Jo’s argument by suggesting that making marijuana legal
and available to a very specific, limited group would result in convenient and comfortable access
to any “hard drug.” It is far easier to disagree with this argument than the one Jo has actually
made.
e. Mo claims that we should save energy. But we can’t his claims seriously. After all, he owns several huge mansions homes. Big houses require a great deal of precious
energy to run. If he really thought that we should save energy, then he would live in a
much more modest house, but he doesn’t.
good
Fallacy: Appeal to the person (specifically, tu quoque)
Explanation: Mo’s argument is being discredited by insisting that it is hypocritical for him, as the owner of a large home, to promote curbing energy use. The opponent here is of course ignoring
the possibility that the owner of a large home may be very responsible about his or her energy
use.