Devry PHIL447 final exam (3 sets)

Question 1.1.(TCO 1) What makes critical thinkingcritical?(Points : 4) It requires careful and deliberate work It is an analytic process It requires coming up with claims, true or otherwise It is the application of common sense to complex problems It offers guidance about critiquing thinking Question 2.2.(TCO 1, 2, 4) What is the first order of business when it comes to thinking critically about an issue?(Points : 4) Formulating a proposal Discovering whether the question is objective Determining exactly what the issueis Determining whether a fallacy is involved Realizing that all claims are equally valid Question 3.3.(TCOs 1, 2, 3) What activity is being attempted when making an argument?(Points : 4) Arguments attempt to persuade those who listen or read them. Arguments seek to win adherents to a position. Arguments seek to refute the positions of other people. Arguments attempt to support or prove conclusions. Arguments attempt to explain difficult concepts. Question 4.4.(TCOs 2, 3) For inductive arguments, how do we measure their quality as stronger or weaker?(Points : 4) Based on how much support their premises provide for the conclusion Based on requiring little translation into syllogistic form Based on their appearing in a standard form Based on the clear definition of critical words Based on the syllogism that can be formed from them Question 5.5.(TCO 1, 2) The mode of persuasion that Aristotle defined aspathosrefers to arguments based on what?(Points : 4) Whether a decision is ethical Being alert to influences in one’s thinking The speaker’s personal attributes The audience’s emotions Using information and reasoning Question 6.6.(TCO 6) What is a likely reason for having trouble identifying a conclusion in what you hear or read?(Points : 4) There are too many rhetorical claims There is not enough background information The premise introduces a consideration that runs counter to common sense The conventions of argument are not being followed It could be that the passage is not an argument at all Question 7.7.(TCOs 6, 7, 8, 9) Which of the five items below is usuallyNOTa part of a good argumentative essay? (Points : 4) A statement of one's position on the issue Arguments that support one's position on the issue Rebuttals of arguments that support contrary positions on the issue An author's claim to speak with respected expertise based on qualifications or experience A statement of the issue Question 8.8.(TCOs 6, 8, 9) What is grouping ambiguity?(Points : 4) When one arbitrarily classifies people as a group for unclear purposes When people share an affinity that is not obvious When it is not clear whether a word is being used to refer to a group or to the individuals within a group When an author or speaker seeks a group to blame as a scapegoat When labeling classifications of people with epithets Question 9.9.(TCOs 2, 6, 7, 8) Which of the following would suggest a lack of credibility in a claim?(Points : 4) When it is accompanied by other claims that have credibility The claim conflicts with what we have observed When the person presenting the claim has something to gain by our believing it When it brings something we have not learned before When it comes from an interested party Question 10.10.(TCOs 1, 6, 7, 9) What is the purpose of the rhetorical device called a euphemism?(Points : 4) To replace ambiguous terms with clearer ones To hide the agenda of interested parties To replace another term with a neutral or positive expression instead of one with negative associations To replace vague terms with others that communicate more information To replace other expressions with new ones that are expected to be more acceptable Question 11.11.(TCOs 1, 7) What is the purpose of the rhetorical device called hyperbole?(Points : 4) Synonym for euphemism To bring humor to a difficult analysis Exaggerating for effect Sarcastic claim Based on unwarranted assumptions Question 12.12.(TCOs 1, 2) What is the personalad hominemfallacy?(Points : 4) Attacking an argument based on the personal shortcomings of the one making the argument The status given to an argument based on the fame and good reputation of the originating person Attacking an argument based on the confusion of what the author has presented before Attacking an argument because of who presented it Attributing added value to an argument based on who has presented it Question 13.13.(TCOs 6, 7, 8) To the overall topic of burden of proof, what is the purpose of the rule called affirmative/negative plausibility?(Points : 4) Other things being equal, the burden of proof falls automatically on those supporting it affirmatively. Other things being equal, the burden of proof is shared by all parties that have a shared interest in the outcome. Other things being equal, the burden of proof rests with the parties with the most to lose. Other things being equal, the burden of proof rests with neither party automatically. Other things being equal, the first decision must be who must bear the burden of proof. Question 14.14.(TCOs 1, 2) What is a standard-form categorical claim?(Points : 4) The claim that the burden of proof must be shared because the evidence is too weak and indirect. A claim based on the primary documents of early philosophers. A claim that strictly follows Aristotle’s method. A claim that relies upon the orderly processes of biology. A claim that results from putting names or descriptions of classes into one of the AEIO forms. Question 15.15.(TCOs 3, 4) What is the purpose of a Venn Diagram?(Points : 4) To give a graphic illustration of standard-form claims To show how nouns and noun phrases relate To demonstrate the orderly processes of biology To show the primary characteristics of things To illustrate the classes of things Question 16.16.(TCOs 3, 4, 8, 9) What circumstances are necessary for two claims to be equivalent?(Points : 4) They would be true in all and exactly the same circumstances. They match perfectly in form but address differing topics. They match but one of the issues cannot be affirmed as true. They both give a graphic illustration of standard-form claims. They express differing relations within the same class or category. Question 17.17.(TCOs 2, 3, 4) Logical relationships between corresponding claims of standard-form categorical logic are illustrated in the graphic square of opposition. What is known about two claims when they are called contradictory claims?(Points : 4) They never have the same truth values. One is always false in the set. They always have the same truth values. They never share the same subject term. One is always true in the set. Question 18.18.(TCOs 2, 3, 4) How do we work the categorical operation called obversion?(Points : 4) By changing the claims from being in the same class to being outside the class By limiting the scope of terms used to those within a class By changing a claim from positive to negative, or vice versa By changing one claim to referring outside of a class but leaving the other one inside the class By making an argument invalid in form Question 19.19.(TCOs 2, 5) What is the purpose of studying a sample?(Points : 4) To establish logical connections among a group of people To observe new and previously unseen factors in a population of people To reduce a study to a manageable size For reasons of economy of both effort and cost To generalize your findings from a sample to the whole set from which the sample is taken Question 20.20.(TCOs 2, 5) In studying a sample, what is meant by the term sampling frame?(Points : 4) A precise definition of the population and the attribute in which one is interested The diversity of the whole population that is being studied Some part of the population intentionally left out of the target population Some biasing factor excluded from the target population The size of the sample itself Question 21.21.(TCOs 1, 5, 8, 9) What is the inductive “fallacy of anecdotal evidence”?(Points : 4) A version of hasty generalizing where the sample is just a story Bypassing standard questions to ask for opinions Telling personal experiences Bypassing standard questioning to accept data that does not match the possible answers Asking hypothetical questions of "what if..." Question 22.22.(TCOs 1, 2) What is an analogue?(Points : 4) A version of hasty generalizing where the sample is just a story The idea that one can understand predictability and overcome its randomness Telling personal experiences The idea that sequences of occurrences can be predicted A thing that has similar attributes to another thing Question 23.23.(TCOs 1, 2, 3) What is the purpose of explanations?(Points : 4) Describing natural phenomena Elucidating something in one way or another Providing ethical justifications for actions Providing knowledge Providing reasons to believe claims Question 24.24.(TCOs 2, 6) The deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant define moral imperatives to prescribe actions not for the sake of some result but simply because(Points : 4) those actions are our moral duty. those actions are dictated by conscience. those actions will produce the greatest happiness. those actions will promote the freedom of other people. those actions will benefit everyone concerned. Question 25.25.(TCOs 1, 6) "If someone appears to be violating the consistency principle, then the burden of proof is on that person to show he or she is in fact not violating the principle." Why is this principle necessary?(Points : 4) Moral arguments need to be specific. It is how one deduces the right thing to do. Out of fairness, separate moral cases, if similar, must be given similar treatment. Moral explanations need to show the reasons for the results. All moral claims are relative. Question 1.1.(TCOs 3, 6, 7, 9) Here is a passage that contains a rhetorical fallacy. Name that fallacy, and in a paragraph, explain why the argument is irrelevant to the point at issue. Here is your example for this question: An editorial says, "Taxes have jumped by more than 30% in just two years! The governor is working for a balanced state budget, but it'll be on the backs of us taxpayers, the people who have the very least to spend! It seems pretty clear that these increased taxes are undermining the social structure in this state. Anybody who isn't angry about this just doesn't understand the situation and hasn't figured out just how miserable they are."(Points : 15) Question 2.2.(TCOs 5, 8) In the example below, identify the presumed cause and the presumed effect. Does the example contain or imply a causal claim, a hypothesis, or an explanation that cannot be tested? If it does fall into one of those categories, tell whether the problem is due to vagueness, circularity, or some other problem of language. Also tell whether there might be some way to test the situation if it is possible at all. Here is your example: This part of the coastline is subject to mudslides because there is a lack of mature vegetation growing on it.(Points : 15) Question 3.3.(TCOs 2, 4) Explain in what way the thinking of the following statement is wrong or defective. Give reasons for your judgment. I believe that violent video games contribute to sexual violence and other forms of antisocial behavior. No one has ever shown that it doesn’t.(Points : 10) Question 4.4.(TCOs 3, 9) Can a person belong to more than one culture at the same time? If so, does this create any logical difficulty for moral relativists?(Points : 10) Question 5.5.(TCOs 6, 7, 9) Here is a short essay about an investigation. There are also four questions/tasks; write a paragraph to answer each one of them. 1. Identify the causal hypothesis at issue. 2. Identify what kind of investigation it is. 3. There are control and experimental groups. State the difference in effect (or cause) between the control and experimental groups. 4. State the conclusion that you think is warranted by the report. Research at the University of Pennsylvania and the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia indicates that children who sleep in a dimly lighted room until age two may be up to five times more likely to develop myopia (nearsightedness) when they grow up. The researchers asked the parents of children who had been patients at the researchers' eye clinic to recall the lighting conditions in the children's bedroom from birth to age two. Of a total of 172 children who slept in darkness, 10% were nearsighted. Of a total of 232 who slept with a night light, 34% were nearsighted. Of a total of 75 who slept with a lamp on, 55% were nearsighted. The lead ophthalmologist, Dr. Graham, E. Quinn, said that "just as the body needs to rest, this suggests that the eyes need a period of darkness."(Points : 30) Question 6.6.(TCOs 3, 4, 6) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question. Your three questions are: 1. What issue is the author addressing? 2. If the author is supporting a position with an argument, restate the argument in your own words. 3. What rhetorical devices does the author employ in this text? The Passage: "Another quality that makes [Texas Republican and former Congressman] Tom DeLay an un-Texas politician is that he's mean. By and large, Texas pols are an agreeable set of less-than-perfect humans and quite often well-intentioned. As Carl Parker of Port Arthur used to observe, if you took all the fools out of the [legislature], it would not be a representative body any longer. The old sense of collegiality was strong, and vindictive behavior punishing pols for partisan reasons was simply not done. But those are Tom DeLay's specialties, his trademarks. The Hammer is not only genuinely feared in Washington, he is, I'm sorry to say, hated." -excerpt from a column by Molly Ivins,Ft. Worth Star-Telegram(Points : 30) Question 7.7.(TCOs 7, 8) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer the question in at least one full paragraph, giving specific reasons. The Passage: Elizabeth has a paper due tomorrow morning. She has tried to write something for hours, but has no ideas for a good paper. Elizabeth remembers that her sorority sister, Deb, said that Elizabeth could use any of Deb’s papers in their sorority house computer. Elizabeth remembers that Deb wrote a paper on the very same topic the previous semester. Elizabeth decides to get Deb’s paper off the sorority house computer and leave a note telling Deb what she has done. Elizabeth feels confident that she has Deb’s permission to do this. Is Elizabeth guilty of plagiarizing?(Points : 20) a Question 8.8.(TCOs 6, 7, 9) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question. Your three questions are as follows. 1. What premises is the author using? 2. What conclusions does the author come to? 3. Are the conclusions justified? Either one thinks that there is no reason for believing any political doctrine or one sees some reason, however shaky, for the commitment of politics. If a person believes that political doctrines are void of content, that person will be quite content to see political debates go on, but won't expect anything useful to come from them. If we consider the other case that there is a patriotic justification for a political belief, then what? If the belief is that a specific political position is true, then one ought to be intolerant of all other political beliefs, since each political position must be held to be false relative to the belief one has. And since each political position holds out the promise of reward for any probability of its fixing social problems, however small, that makes it seem rational to choose it over its alternatives. The trouble, of course, is that the people who have other political doctrines may hold theirs just as strongly, making strength of belief itself invalid as a way to determine the rightness of a political position.(Points : 20)

SET 2

Question 1.1. (TCO 1) "Thinking about thinking" is the definition of what? (Points : 4)
Development of arguments
Measure of good sense
Development of critical skills
Writing for clarity
Critical thinking


Question 2.2. (TCO 1, 2, 4) What is the simple definition of an issue? (Points : 4)
An element of political controversy
A point of conflict between people or groups of people
Nothing more than a question of whether a given claim is true or not
A cultural claim by a group of people with an allegation of rightness
An allegation of truth or falsehood


Question 3.3. (TCO 1, 2, 3) What are the two parts of an argument? (Points : 4)
Description and detail
Problem and proposal
Explanation and clarification
Definition and example
Premise and conclusion


Question 4.4. (TCOs 2, 3) Inductive arguments support conclusions and are described as stronger or weaker. What is meant by that description? (Points : 4)
It proves the conclusion.
It is a measure of how much support a premise provides for a conclusion.
It is a measure to show opportunities for improvement.
It is a measure of how certain the conclusion is.
It provides encouragement for believing the claim in the conclusion.


Question 5.5. (TCO 1, 2) The mode of persuasion that Aristotle defined as ethos refers to arguments based on what? (Points : 4)
Whether a decision is ethical
Being alert to influences in one’s thinking
The speaker’s personal attributes
The audience’s emotions
Using information and reasoning


Question 6.6. (TCO 6) What is a likely reason for having trouble identifying a conclusion in what you hear or read? (Points : 4)
There are too many rhetorical claims
There is not enough background information
The premise introduces a consideration that runs counter to common sense
The conventions of argument are not being followed
It could be that the passage is not an argument at all


Question 7.7. (TCOs 6, 7, 8, 9) Which of the five items below is usually NOT a part of a good argumentative essay?
(Points : 4)
A statement of one's position on the issue
Arguments that support one's position on the issue
Rebuttals of arguments that support contrary positions on the issue
An author's claim to speak with respected expertise based on qualifications or experience
A statement of the issue


Question 8.8. (TCOs 6, 8, 9) What is grouping ambiguity? (Points : 4)
When one arbitrarily classifies people as a group for unclear purposes
When people share an affinity that is not obvious
When it is not clear whether a word is being used to refer to a group or to the individuals within a group
When an author or speaker seeks a group to blame as a scapegoat
When labeling classifications of people with epithets


Question 9.9. (TCOs 2, 6, 7, 8) If a claim is made by a disinterested party, we know that (Points : 4)
disinterested parties have no stake in our believing one way or another.
disinterested parties bring weaker information.
disinterested parties lack expertise in the content of given claims.
disinterested parties lack credibility over a given claim.
disinterested parties bring irrelevant considerations to discussions.


Question 10.10. (TCOs 1, 6, 7, 9) What is the meaning of the rhetorical device called a stereotype? (Points : 4)
Assumptions about all members of a group based on a single member
A thought or image about a group of people based on little or no evidence
A euphemism for opposing groups
A multiple view of an identified group of people or objects
A categorization of similar people




Question 11.11. (TCOs 1, 7) What is the purpose of the rhetorical device called hyperbole? (Points : 4)
Synonym for euphemism
To bring humor to a difficult analysis
Exaggerating for effect
Sarcastic claim
Based on unwarranted assumptions




Question 12.12. (TCOs 1, 2) What is the personal ad hominem fallacy? (Points : 4)
Attacking an argument based on the personal shortcomings of the one making the argument
The status given to an argument based on the fame and good reputation of the originating person
Attacking an argument based on the confusion of what the author has presented before
Attacking an argument because of who presented it
Attributing added value to an argument based on who has presented it




Question 13.13. (TCOs 6, 7, 8) To the overall topic of burden of proof, what is the purpose of the rule called affirmative/negative plausibility? (Points : 4)
Other things being equal, the burden of proof falls automatically on those supporting it affirmatively.
Other things being equal, the burden of proof is shared by all parties that have a shared interest in the outcome.
Other things being equal, the burden of proof rests with the parties with the most to lose.
Other things being equal, the burden of proof rests with neither party automatically.
Other things being equal, the first decision must be who must bear the burden of proof.


Question 14.14. (TCOs 1, 2) What are the two terms that go into the standard-form categorical claim? (Points : 4)
Initial term and background term
Plain term and common sense term
Category term and individual term
Subject term and predicate term
First term and second term




Question 15.15. (TCOs 3, 4) Each standard form of categorical logic has its own graphic illustration known by what name? (Points : 4)
Overlapping regions
Block of exclusion
JoHari window
Venn diagram
Square of opposition


Question 16.16. (TCOs 3, 4, 8, 9) What circumstances are necessary for two claims to be equivalent? (Points : 4)
They would be true in all and exactly the same circumstances.
They match perfectly in form but address differing topics.
They match but one of the issues cannot be affirmed as true.
They both give a graphic illustration of standard-form claims.
They express differing relations within the same class or category.




Question 17.17. (TCOs 2, 3, 4) Logical relationships between corresponding claims of standard-form categorical logic are illustrated in the graphic square of opposition. What is known about two claims when they are called subcontrary claims? (Points : 4)
They would share the same predicate term.
They would share the same subject term.
They need not be in the same standard form of translation.
They can both be true, but they cannot both be false.
Only one of them can be true.


Question 18.18. (TCOs 2, 3, 4) How do we work the categorical operation called obversion? (Points : 4)
By changing the claims from being in the same class to being outside the class
By limiting the scope of terms used to those within a class
By changing a claim from positive to negative, or vice versa
By changing one claim to referring outside of a class but leaving the other one inside the class
By making an argument invalid in form


Question 19.19. (TCOs 2, 5) What is the purpose of studying a sample? (Points : 4)
To establish logical connections among a group of people
To observe new and previously unseen factors in a population of people
To reduce a study to a manageable size
For reasons of economy of both effort and cost
To generalize your findings from a sample to the whole set from which the sample is taken


Question 20.20. (TCOs 2, 5) In studying a sample, what is meant by the term sampling frame? (Points : 4)
A precise definition of the population and the attribute in which one is interested
The diversity of the whole population that is being studied
Some part of the population intentionally left out of the target population
Some biasing factor excluded from the target population
The size of the sample itself




Question 21.21. (TCOs 1, 5, 8, 9) What is the inductive "fallacy of hasty generalization"? (Points : 4)
The acceptance of a lowered error margin
A rush to judgment
A conclusion based on the earliest results of a sample
Letting one's own biases impact interpretation of results
Overestimating the strength of an argument based on a small sample




Question 22.22. (TCOs 1, 2) What does "attacking the analogy" mean? (Points : 4)
The acceptance of a lowered degree of similarity between analogues
Showing that analogues are not as similar as stated or implied
A conclusion based on the earliest results of a sample
Showing the interpretation of results
Overestimating the strength of an analogy




Question 23.23. (TCOs 1, 2, 3) What is the difference between an explanation and an argument? (Points : 4)
Arguments are specific; explanations are general.
Arguments support or demonstrate statements; explanations elucidate something in one way or another.
Arguments describe what does happen; explanations describe what will happen.
Arguments show the interpretation of results; explanations show the reasons for the results.
Arguments make claims; explanations make premises.




Question 24.24. (TCOs 2, 6) Aristotle wrote in the Nicomachean Ethics that ethical virtues are what? (Points : 4)
Gained by imitating worthy people
Natural-born abilities
Traits (such as wisdom, justice, courage, and temperance) that we acquire through our abilities of reason and which we practice until they become habits
Gained by concentrated study under disciplined teachers, much like coaching
Gained by specialized knowledge and study in very precisely defined subjects


Question 25.25. (TCOs 1, 6) "If someone appears to be violating the consistency principle, then the burden of proof is on that person to show he or she is in fact not violating the principle." What fallacy is being committed by the person who violates this statement? (Points : 4)
Red herring
Inconsistency ad hominem
Utilitarianism
Justified exception to the rule
Strawman

1. (TCOs 3, 6, 7, 9) Here is a passage that contains a rhetorical fallacy.
Name that fallacy, and in a paragraph, explain why the argument is irrelevant to the point at issue. Here is your example for this question:
An editorial says, "Taxes have jumped by more than 30% in just two years! The governor is working for a balanced state budget, but it'll be on the backs of us taxpayers, the people who have the very least to spend! It seems pretty clear that these increased taxes are undermining the social structure in this state. Anybody who isn't angry about this just doesn't understand the situation and hasn't figured out just how miserable they are." (Points : 15)




Question 2.2. (TCOs 5, 8) In the example below, identify the presumed cause and the presumed effect. Does the example contain or imply a causal claim, a hypothesis, or an explanation that cannot be tested?
If it does fall into one of those categories, tell whether the problem is due to vagueness, circularity, or some other problem of language.
Also tell whether there might be some way to test the situation if it is possible at all.
Here is your example:
The movie No Country for Old Men was a big hit because reviewers gave it a good write-up. (Points : 15)




Question 3.3. (TCOs 2, 4) Explain in what way the thinking of the following statement is wrong or defective. Give reasons for your judgment.
Joining the military, like voting, is a major responsibility. Since 17-year-olds can serve in the military, it only makes sense that they be allowed to vote. (Points : 10)




Question 4.4. (TCOs 3, 9) Suppose that a group of immigrants to the U.S. believes in child sacrifice as an essential part of their religious rituals. If one day the immigrant group becomes so integrated into U.S. society that most of its members no longer believe in child sacrifice, can this be thought of as moral progress from the standpoint of moral relativism? (Points : 10)




Question 5.5. (TCOs 6, 7, 9) Here is a short essay about an investigation.
There are also four questions/tasks; write a paragraph to answer each one of them.
1. Identify the causal hypothesis at issue.
2. Identify what kind of investigation it is.
3. There are control and experimental groups. State the difference in effect (or cause) between the control and experimental groups.
4. State the conclusion that you think is warranted by the report.
Scientists have learned that people who drink wine weekly or monthly are less likely to develop dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. (Daily wine drinking, however, seems to produce no protective effect.) The lead researcher was Dr. Thomas Truelsen of the Institute of Preventive Medicine at Kommunehospitalet in Copenhagen. The researchers identified the drinking patters of 1,709 people in Copenhagen in the 1970s and then assessed them for dementia in the 1990s, when they were aged 65 or older. When they were assessed two decades later, 83 of the participants had developed dementia. People who drank beer regularly were an increased risk of developing dementia.
-adapted from BBC News Online (Points : 30)




Question 6.6. (TCOs 3, 4, 6) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question.
Your three questions are:
1. What issue is the author addressing?
2. If the author is supporting a position with an argument, restate the argument in your own words.
3. What rhetorical devices does the author employ in this text?

The Passage:
"Another quality that makes [Texas Republican and former Congressman] Tom DeLay an un-Texas politician is that he's mean. By and large, Texas pols are an agreeable set of less-than-perfect humans and quite often well-intentioned. As Carl Parker of Port Arthur used to observe, if you took all the fools out of the [legislature], it would not be a representative body any longer. The old sense of collegiality was strong, and vindictive behavior punishing pols for partisan reasons was simply not done. But those are Tom DeLay's specialties, his trademarks. The Hammer is not only genuinely feared in Washington, he is, I'm sorry to say, hated."
-excerpt from a column by Molly Ivins, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram (Points : 30)




Question 7.7. TCOs 7, 8) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer the question in at least one full paragraph, giving specific reasons.

The Passage:
Ed likes to argue with just about anybody on just about anything. One of his favorite arguments is against speeding laws. “Why can’t I go as fast as I like?” he asks. “It’s a free country, isn’t it? I have the right, don’t I?” Does Ed have a valid point? (Points : 20)




Question 8.8. (TCOs 6, 7, 9) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question.
Your three questions are:
1. What premises is the author using?
2. What conclusions does the author come to?
3. Does the passage contain any errors in reasoning?
Either one thinks that there is no reason for believing any political doctrine or one sees some reason, however shaky, for the commitment of politics. If a person believes that political doctrines are void of content, that person will be quite content to see political debates go on, but won't expect anything useful to come from them. If we consider the other case, that there is a patriotic justification for a political belief, then what? If the belief is that a specific political position is true, then one ought to be intolerant of all other political beliefs, since each political “position” must be held to be false relative to the belief one has. And since each political position holds out the promise of reward for any probability of its fixing social problems, however small, that makes it seem rational to choose it over its alternatives. The trouble, of course, is that the people who have other political doctrines may hold theirs just as strongly, making strength of belief itself invalid as a way to determine the rightness of a political position. (Points : 20)

SET 3

Page 1

Question 1.1. (TCO 1) "Thinking about thinking" is the definition of what? (Points : 4)

Development of arguments

Measure of good sense

Development of critical skills

Writing for clarity

Critical thinking

Question 2.2. (TCO 1, 2, 4) What is the principle concern when handling an issue? (Points : 4)

Whether a given claim is true or not

Whether the claim at issue attaches to the conclusion or not

Whether the claim at issue is clearly understood

Whether the claim is not ambiguous

Whether the claim at issue is open for discussion and resolution

Question 3.3. (TCO 1, 2, 3) What are the two conditions needed for a premise to offer support for a conclusion? (Points : 4)

It is ethical and justifies an action

It provides knowledge and defines terms

It provides reasons and analyzes data

It specifies what caused something and how it works

It is true and relevant to the conclusion

Question 4.4. (TCOs 2, 3) For inductive arguments, how do we measure their quality as stronger or weaker? (Points : 4)

Based on how much support their premises provide for the conclusion

Based on requiring little translation into syllogistic form

Based on their appearing in a standard form

Based on the clear definition of critical words

Based on the syllogism that can be formed from them

Question 5.5. (TCO 1, 2) The mode of persuasion that Aristotle defined as logos refers to arguments based on what? (Points : 4)

Whether a decision is ethical

Being alert to influences in one’s thinking

The speaker’s personal attributes

The audience’s emotions

Using information and reasoning

Question 6.6. (TCO 6) After identifying the author's conclusion or thesis in a passage, what is the next step for understanding it? (Points : 4)

Locating the reasons that have been offered to support the conclusion

Separating the argument from other nonargumentative material attached to it

Identifying prejudicial coloring in the language of the passage

Clarifying the context of the passage

Determining the exact meaning of the thesis

Question 7.7. (TCOs 6, 7, 8, 9) Which of the five items below is usually NOT a part of a good argumentative essay? (Points : 4)

Discrediting of other authors

Rebuttals of arguments that support contrary positions

A statement of the issue

A statement of one's position on the issue

Arguments that support one's position on the issue

Question 8.8. (TCOs 6, 8, 9) What is the precise meaning of syntactic ambiguity? (Points : 4)

A statement is vague

It is not clear to what a pronoun is supposed to refer

A statement contains an ambiguous word or phrase

A claim is open to two or more interpretations because of its structure

It is not clear whether a word is being used to refer to a group collectively or to members within the group individually

Question 9.9. (TCOs 2, 6, 7, 8) If a claim is made by a disinterested party, we know that (Points : 4)

disinterested parties have no stake in our believing one way or another.

disinterested parties bring weaker information.

disinterested parties lack expertise in the content of given claims.

disinterested parties lack credibility over a given claim.

disinterested parties bring irrelevant considerations to discussions.

Question 10.10. (TCOs 1, 6, 7, 9) What is the purpose of the rhetorical device called a dysphemism? (Points : 4)

To improve reader acceptability of conflicting information

To convey disinformation to readers

To clarify language that would otherwise be vague

To overcome ambiguity

To produce negative effects in listener’s and reader’s attitudes towards something

Question 11.11. (TCOs 1, 7) What is the purpose of the rhetorical device called a proof surrogate? (Points : 4)

A claim for the validity of a euphemism

A suggestion that there is evidence or authority for a claim without actually citing it

A claim that proof has actually been achieved in the past

A replacement of one author or speaker by one with greater recognition

A legal process of claim by precedent

Question 12.12. (TCOs 1, 2) What is the personal ad hominem fallacy? (Points : 4)

Attacking an argument based on the personal shortcomings of the one making the argument

The status given to an argument based on the fame and good reputation of the originating person

Attacking an argument based on the confusion of what the author has presented before

Attacking an argument because of who presented it

Attributing added value to an argument based on who has presented it

Question 13.13. (TCOs 6, 7, 8) To the overall topic of burden of proof, what is the purpose of the rule called initial plausibility? (Points : 4)

The initial response of listeners or readers based on their background information

The plain and common sense of a claim when first presented

The greater burden of proof placed on someone who asserts a claim

The status of being the first claim or argument presented when a controversy begins

The greater burden of proof placed upon the first person to try to refute an argument

Question 14.14. (TCOs 1, 2) What is a standard-form categorical claim? (Points : 4)

The claim that the burden of proof must be shared because the evidence is too weak and indirect.

A claim based on the primary documents of early philosophers.

A claim that strictly follows Aristotle’s method.

A claim that relies upon the orderly processes of biology.

A claim that results from putting names or descriptions of classes into one of the AEIO forms.

Question 15.15. (TCOs 3, 4) Each standard form of categorical logic has its own graphic illustration known by what name? (Points : 4)

Overlapping regions

Block of exclusion

JoHari window

Venn diagram

Square of opposition

Question 16.16. (TCOs 3, 4, 8, 9) Claims are equivalent under what terms? (Points : 4)

Under no circumstances could both be false.

Under no circumstances could one of them be true and the other false.

Under no circumstances could the truth of one transfer to the other one.

Under no circumstances could the conclusion be true if the premise is false.

Under no circumstance can they both be translated into differing standard forms of categorical logic.

Question 17.17. (TCOs 2, 3, 4) Logical relationships between corresponding claims of standard-form categorical logic are illustrated in the graphic square of opposition. What is known about two claims when they are called contradictory claims? (Points : 4)

They never have the same truth values.

One is always false in the set.

They always have the same truth values.

They never share the same subject term.

One is always true in the set.

Question 18.18. (TCOs 2, 3, 4) How do you find the converse of a standard-form claim? (Points : 4)

By matching the nouns of two claims

By changing the same claim into a negative claim

By changing the negative claim of a pair to positive language

By finding a term common to both the subject and predicate

By switching the positions of the subject and predicate terms

Question 19.19. (TCOs 2, 5) What question is addressed in concerns for bias in sampling? (Points : 4)

Is the sample size large enough to overcome issues of random sampling of a diverse target population?

What exactly is the feature in the target population that needs to be carefully included in the sample?

Is there sufficient probability that the conclusion will support a hypothesis about the target population?

Is there sufficient probability that the conclusion will support a hypothesis about the sample?

Is any related factor present in the sample in a frequency different from what we would expect to find in the target population?

Question 20.20. (TCOs 2, 5) In studying a sample, what is meant by the term error margin? (Points : 4)

Underlying assumptions about the choice of the sample itself

The range of random variation from sample to sample

Factors that reduce the diversity of the sample

The randomness of the sample population

The size of the sample itself

Question 21.21. (TCOs 1, 5, 8, 9) What is the inductive “fallacy of anecdotal evidence”? (Points : 4)

A version of hasty generalizing where the sample is just a story

Bypassing standard questions to ask for opinions

Telling personal experiences

Bypassing standard questioning to accept data that does not match the possible answers

Asking hypothetical questions of "what if..."

Question 22.22. (TCOs 1, 2) What does "attacking the analogy" mean? (Points : 4)

The acceptance of a lowered degree of similarity between analogues

Showing that analogues are not as similar as stated or implied

A conclusion based on the earliest results of a sample

Showing the interpretation of results

Overestimating the strength of an analogy

Question 23.23. (TCOs 1, 2, 3) What is the difference between an explanation and an argument? (Points : 4)

Arguments are specific; explanations are general.

Arguments support or demonstrate statements; explanations elucidate something in one way or another.

Arguments describe what does happen; explanations describe what will happen.

Arguments show the interpretation of results; explanations show the reasons for the results.

Arguments make claims; explanations make premises.

Question 24.24. (TCOs 2, 6) What is the driving concept within religious relativism in ethics? (Points : 4)

The belief that what is right and wrong is whatever one's religious affiliation or culture deems to be right and wrong

That only one's own religion has the correct access to ethics

That the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy does not apply to the leaders of one's religious group

That it is important to be affiliated with a group in order to adopt its ethics and moral standards

That there is no ethical variation or conflict within religious groups when the religious groups engage controversial topics

Question 25.25. (TCOs 1, 6) "If separate cases are not different in any relevant way, then they should be treated the same way, and if separate cases are treated in the same way, they should not be different in any relevant way." What is this principle called? (Points : 4)

Aesthetic principle

Confluence principle

Consistency principle

Distributive justice

Categorical imperative

Page 2

Question 1. 1. (TCOs 3, 6, 7, 9) Here is a passage that contains a rhetorical fallacy.

Name that fallacy, and in a paragraph, explain why the argument is irrelevant to the point of the passage. Here is your example for this question:

Republican says, "What do you think of our party's new plan for Medicare?"

Democrat says, "I think it is pretty good, as a matter of fact."

Republican, "Oh? Why is that?"

Democrat, "Because you Republicans haven't even offered a plan, that's why!" (Points : 15)

Question 2. 2. (TCOs 5, 8) In the example below, identify the presumed cause and the presumed effect. Does the example contain or imply a causal claim, a hypothesis, or an explanation that cannot be tested?

If it does fall into one of those categories, tell whether the problem is due to vagueness, circularity, or some other problem of language.

Also tell whether there might be some way to test the situation if it is possible at all.

Here is your example:

This part of the coastline is subject to mudslides because there is a lack of mature vegetation growing on it. (Points : 15)

Question 3. 3. (TCOs 2, 4) Explain in what way the thinking of the following statement is wrong or defective. Give reasons for your judgment.

I believe that violent video games contribute to sexual violence and other forms of antisocial behavior. No one has ever shown that it doesn’t. (Points : 10)

Question 4. 4. (TCOs 3, 9) Suppose that a group of immigrants to the U.S. believes in child sacrifice as an essential part of their religious rituals. If one day the immigrant group becomes so integrated into U.S. society that most of its members no longer believe in child sacrifice, can this be thought of as moral progress from the standpoint of moral relativism? (Points : 10)

Question 5. 5. (TCOs 6, 7, 9) Here is a short essay about an investigation.

Here are also four questions/tasks write a paragraph to answer each one of them:

1. Identify the causal hypothesis at issue.

2. Identify what kind of investigation it is.

3. There are control and experimental groups. State the difference in effect (or cause) between the control and experimental groups.

4. State the conclusion that you think is warranted by the report.

Does jogging keep you healthy? Two independent researchers interested in whether exercise prevents colds interviewed 20 volunteers about the frequency with which they caught colds. The volunteers, none of who exercised regularly, were then divided into two groups of 10, and one group participated in a six-month regimen of jogging three miles every other day. At the end of the six months, the frequency of colds among the joggers was compared both with that of the nonjoggers and with that of the joggers prior to the experiment. It was found that, compared with the nonjoggers, the joggers had 25% fewer colds. The record of colds among the joggers also declined in comparison with their own record prior to the exercise program. (Points : 30)

Question 6. 6. (TCOs 3, 4, 6) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question.

Your three questions are:

1. What issue is the author addressing?

2. If the author is supporting a position with an argument, restate the argument in your own words.

3. What rhetorical devices does the author employ in this text?

The Passage:

"Another quality that makes [Texas Republican and former Congressman] Tom DeLay an un-Texas politician is that he's mean. By and large, Texas pols are an agreeable set of less-than-perfect humans and quite often well-intentioned. As Carl Parker of Port Arthur used to observe, if you took all the fools out of the [legislature], it would not be a representative body any longer. The old sense of collegiality was strong, and vindictive behavior punishing pols for partisan reasons was simply not done. But those are Tom DeLay's specialties, his trademarks. The Hammer is not only genuinely feared in Washington, he is, I'm sorry to say, hated."

-excerpt from a column by Molly Ivins, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram (Points : 30)

Question 7. 7. (TCOs 7, 8) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer the question in at least one full paragraph, giving specific reasons.

The Passage:

One day, out of frustration, your roommate rips several pages out of his or her textbook, rolls them up, and throws them across the room. You go to pick up the pages. “Leave them,” your roommate insists. “It says something. It’s art.” “It’s garbage,” you reply. Who is right? (Points : 20)

Question 8. 8. (TCOs 6, 7, 9) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question.

Your three questions are as follows.

1. What premises is the author using?

2. What conclusions does the author come to?

3. Are the conclusions justified?

Either one thinks that there is no reason for believing any political doctrine or one sees some reason, however shaky, for the commitment of politics. If a person believes that political doctrines are void of content, that person will be quite content to see political debates go on, but won't expect anything useful to come from them. If we consider the other case that there is a patriotic justification for a political belief, then what? If the belief is that a specific political position is true, then one ought to be intolerant of all other political beliefs, since each political position must be held to be false relative to the belief one has. And since each political position holds out the promise of reward for any probability of its fixing social problems, however small, that makes it seem rational to choose it over its alternatives. The trouble, of course, is that the people who have other political doctrines may hold theirs just as strongly, making strength of belief itself invalid as a way to determine the rightness of a political position. (Points : 20)