Quiz 3 – SSH 105 PDF

Preview

Summary

Quiz for SSH105...

Description

Quiz 3 – SSH 105 -

All A’s are B’s are a universal generalization = true Any proposition on any topic expressed by any person at any time can be a conclusion = true

-

7. If argument doesn’t contain any conclusion premise indicators them it is ill formed = false: conclusion indicators just tells us when there is one they don’t affect the logical relation.

-

8. The following passage is not an argument “Mr Kray” environmental plan will not do enough to reduce carbon emissions”  not argument, just a statement because there are no premises and no conclusions

-

4. Cogent arguments cannot have false premises = cogency is only concerned with logical connection between the premises/conclusions. Truth doesn’t matter. So, a premise may be either true or false.

-

10. If an argument is deductive or inductive strong then its premises are all true. = false: strength just need to be r/j/r to believe not true. We are not claiming them to be true. There is always the chance that even if they are reasonable to believe that they may turn out being false (fabilism)

-

6. In order to follow the principle of charity when reconstructing an argument all you need to do is make it as strong as possible = false: you also need to be care that you are sticking with the authors intentions and not twisting their words

-

5. It is never acceptable to change the wording of an argument when reconstructing it into standard form = false

-

9. Implicit premises are generally unreasonable to believe = false: implicit premises aim to make an ill-formed argument into a well-formed argument. They can be either reasonable or unreasonable depending on the authors intentions. A well-formed argument is one that is valid or cogent. The premises might be silly and therefore not reasonable to believe, yet the implicit premises make it follow a logical structure.

-

Argument reconstruction 2. Most professors have a PHD o Its ill-formed because premise and the conclusions switches (most a’s are b’s, x is an a therefore x is a b

Sub arguments Team y will win the championship and here’s why. Look either team x or team y will win the championship since all the other teams have been eliminated from the competition. But team x will not win the championship because they lost their star player, and since their other players are very tired from travelling.

1. All the other teams have been eliminated from the competition. 2. If all the other teams have been eliminated from the competition, either tram X or Team Y will win the championship (implicit) 3. Therefore team x or team y will win the championship (1,2 modus ponen) 4. Team x lost their star player 5. Team x other players are very tired from travelling 6. If team x lost their star player and team x other players are very tired from travelling, team X will not win the championship (implicit) 7. Therefore team x will not win the championship (4,5,6) 8. Team y will win the championship (3,7 argument by elimination)

Yuri was falsely accused. How do we know this? Well all criminals have a motive for breaking the law, but Yuri did not have a motive for breaking the law. This means that yuri isn’t a criminal, but if Yuri isn’t a criminal then he was falsely accused. And that’s how we know

1. All criminals have motive for breaking the law 2. Yuri did not know the victim 3. You have to know the victim in order to have a motive OR if yuri did not know the victim, he did not have a motive (implicit) 4. Therefore yuri did not have a motive for breaking the law (2,3 by modus ponen if done in the 2nd way) 5. Therefore yuri is not a criminal (from 1,4 by universal modus tollen) 6. If yuri is not a criminal then he was falsely accused 7. Therefore, yuri was falsely accused (from 5,6 modus ponen) Bullying is morally wrong, since it violates people’s rights. Moreover most people support stricter anti bullying measures. And if most people support measures then we should implement them. So that’s what we should do. Bullying violates peoples rights If it violates ppls rights then is morally wrong (implicit) Bullying is morally wrong Most people support anti bullying measures If most ppl support … then we should implement them We should implement anti bulling rules

1. Bullying violates peoples rights 2. If bullying violates peoples right, then it is morally wrong OR all actions that violate peoples rights are morally wrong (implicit) 3. Therefore bullying is morally wrong (from 1,2 either MP or UMP depending on the implicit premise used) 4. Most people support stricter anti bullying measures 5. If most people support stricter and bullying measures and bullying is morally wrong, then we should implement such measures (implicit) 6. Therefore we should implement anti bullying measures (4,5)

Argument x is strong which shows that it cannot be ill-formed. After all no strong argument is illformed. Argument x is either valid or cogent if it is strong. We know its not valid since its possible for its premises to be true while its conclusions is false. This tells us that it must be cogent and this in turn proves its inductive.

Argument x is strong No strong argument is ill formed 3. argument x is not ill formed if argument x is strong, it is either valid or cogent if argument

Argument x is inductive

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

No argument is ill-formed Argument x is strong Therefore argument x is not ill-formed (from 1,2 URO) If an argument is strong then it is either valid or cogent Therefore argument is either valid or cogent (from 2,4 MP) It’s possible for argument x’s premises to be true while its conclusion is false If it’s possible for arguments x’s premises to be true while its conclusions false, then it is not valid (implicit premise) 8. Therefore argument x is not valid (from 6,7 MP) 9. Argument x is cogent (from 5,8 argument of elimination) 10. If argument x is cogent, it is inductive. Or all cogent arguments are inductive (implicit) 11. Therefore argument x is inductive (from 9,10 by MP or UMP depending on the IP)

*practice sub argument

“We should not go to that restaurant again. Here’s why. First of all, the meals are very overpriced. Since there have been reports of food poisoning there, there’s a good chance that the food is not properly refrigerated. Furthermore, the waiters are often rude.”

Meals are very overpriced there have been reports of food poisoning there if there We should go that reastuarant again

-

-

-

3. An implicit premise is a premise that the author doesn’t state because it is assumed. An argument is ill-formed if it is missing premises. PF= try to stay faithful as possible to the authors intentions. Do not twist his words. Add implicit premises that are fair but not stronger than you think the authrios intentions are. PC= try to make the argument well fomed and not defeated, make the argument as strong as possible. 2. Argument: the moon is made of green cheese, which proves that today is Saturday”

“Either Lefty committed the crime or Righty did. If Righty committed the crime, then he left fingerprints everywhere. But since Righty was wearing gloves, he didn’t leave fingerprints everywhere, which means that we can be sure that he didn’t do it. And so, of course, Lefty did it. Now, if Lefty did it, then most detectives were wrong about him. Sherlock is a detective, so there’s a pretty good chance that Sherlock was wrong about Lefty.

Either lefty or righty commited the crime If righty commiteed the crime then he left fingerprints everywhere Righty was wering gloves If righty was wearing gloves then he didn’t leave fingerprints everywhere If righty didn’t leave fingerprints everywhere then we can be sure he didn’t do it. (syllogism) If righty didn’t commite the crime then lefty did it If lefty did it, then ost dettectives were wrong about him Sherlock is a detective

Lefty committed the crime Sherlock was wrong about lefty...