Fluent Essays

REASONING ABOUT Social Issues (MODR1760) IN-CLASS TEST 3 (20\%) Total worth: 40 points Student Name: Student ID: The test has two parts: part A (10 fallacies) and part B (5 arguments for argument analysis). Make sure to answer all the questions (scroll to the end). For your reference, the last page of the test includes the names of fallacies and criteria for argument analysis. A) For each fallacy, do the following: (1) Represent the argument in the traditional form, (2) identify the fallacy and give its definition, (3) explain how the argument commits the fallacy and why the argument fails. (2 point each for a total of 20 points). 1. It is expected that we only do what is right. We have the right to eat as much as we want. Therefore, it is right to eat as much as you want. 2. Women in the United States are paid less than men. Therefore, my mom must make less money than my dad. 3. Biologically, fetus is human. Since all human beings have a right to life, fetus has a right to life. 4. Euthanasia is wrong because it involves helping someone to end his or her own life. 5. You ask how I can know that youre struggling financially?  Its simple: in a capitalist economy, you either win big or you lose big, and I know youre not one of the big winners. 6. Dr. Khan was a member of the committee who authored the report. I doubt that we can accept anything he has to say in favour of it. 7. Geraldo says that students who cheat on exams should not be automatically expelled from the school. But its ridiculous to insist that students should never be punished for cheating. 8. Judges should not hand down anything but maximum sentences for all convicted criminals. If you start making exceptions, prosecutors will start asking for lighter sentences. Next thing you know, every criminal will be getting off with a mere warning 9. Men and women are clearly not equal. They differ in various attributes. Men are stronger; women more verbal. So how can one say that we ought to treat them equally? 10. You think that welfare mothers would actually prefer to have jobs? There is no evidence for that. They are lazy moochers. B) Argument analysis. For each argument do the following: 1) Identify the type of argument (abductive, analogy, causal, or inductive generalization); (2) Apply the appropriate criteria to the argument; (3) evaluate the argument (very weak, weak, moderately strong, strong) (4 points each, 20 points total). Do all the steps for each argument before moving to the next argument. 1. The case before the court involves a search by the city police of homeless man’s carboard shelter. At issue is whether it was proper for the police to enter the man’s shelter without either a permission or a warrant in order to search the evidence of a crime. A similar case—a relevant precedent—involved a search by the RCMP of an equipment trailer in which a man was living. In that case, the court ruled that the RCMP had violated section 8 of the Canadian Charte“Reasoning About Social Issues” Petrenko Anton, PhD Hours: By appointment (Monday 11:30-12:30) E-Mail: [email protected] AP/MODR1730 D * Neutralizing Fallacies With each question, do the following steps. These steps will help you to understand the problem with the argument and allow you to detect the fallacy correctly. It is very important to write down premises and conclusion and see how the premises are supposed to support the conclusion (answers are at the back): 1. Summarize the argument where it occurs 2. Name the fallacy 3. Give the criteria for committing the fallacy 4. Explain how the fallacy happens in the argument 5. Challenge the fallacy Either you like hokey, or you are gay You don’t like hokey You are gay False Dichotomy False Dichotomy is committed when options are artificially limited (others are ignored) Only two options are given: a) gay or b) like hokey Not exclusive: one can be gay and like hokey or not gay and like hokey (maybe the person finds it dull or too violent) * Neutralizing Fallacies Are you sure that you oppose the proposal to amalgamate with the Canadian Chiropractic College? After all, both the president and the dean are strongly in favour, and you haven’t gotten tenure yet. It is hard for me to see how my neighbours and I can be blamed for discrimination when it comes to deciding who is to live in our condominium building. We make discriminations all through life. If people are not allowed to discriminate, how can they make decisions between right and wrong? Indeed, how can they even act responsibly if they must be indiscriminate in their choices? When it comes to race relations, you are either part of the solution or part of the problem. Appeal to force False Dichotomy Equivocation 1. Paraphrase into traditional form; 2. Name the Fallacy; 3. Give criteria; 4 Explain how it occurs; 5. Explain why wrong. * Neutralizing Fallacies Capital punishment for murderers and rapists is quite justified; there are a number of good reasons for putting to death people who commit such crimes. The university shouldn’t teach Critical Thinking, because Critical Thinking teaches people to argue, and arguments create conflict and dissent between people. If you took a lecture course with Professor Smith, you would know that lectures are a lousy way of learning. Hasty Generalization Equivocation Begging the Question 1. Paraphrase into traditional form; 2. Name the Fallacy; 3. Give criteria; 4 Explain how it occurs; 5. Explain why wrong. * Neutralizing Fallacies Blacks must be happy with their situation these days. There haven’t been any protest marches or loud voices of dissent for some time now. Asked to explain why a payroll cheque bounced, the owner of a professional basketball team replied, “Obviously, we didn’t have enough money in the bank.” A good Christian should not dance because dancing was originally used in pagan mystery cults as a way of worshippin“Reasoning About Social Issues” Petrenko Anton, PhD Hours: By appointment (Monday 11:30-12:30) E-Mail: [email protected] AP/MODR1730 D * This lecture will introduce students to fallacies in argumentation. This lecture will focus on fallacies with insufficient or unacceptible premises. Lecture Objectives Slippery slope False analogy False dichotomy (False Dilemma) False Cause (Post Hoc) Begging the Question Hasty Generalization Loaded Presupposition Self-evident Truth * Insufficient or unacceptable premises: Hasty Generalization The fallacy of hasty generalization is committed when we draw the conclusion about the whole group (population) based on inadequate (small or unrepresentative) observation of the part of the sample of the group. The French are snobby and rude. Remember those two high-and-mighty guys with really bad manners. They are French. I rest my case. You should buy a Dell computer. They are great. I bought one last year, and it has given me nothing but flawless performance. In Hasty Generalizations, the premises are relevant to the conclusion, but they are insufficient (also unacceptable because insufficient). The sample is either too small or unrepresentative of the population. * Insufficient or unacceptable premises: Begging the Question The fallacy of begging the question (arguing in a circle) is committed when one attempts to establish a conclusion in an argument by using the conclusion as a premise (instead of proving the conclusion, one assumes it). God exists. We know it because the Bible says so, and we should believe the Bible because God says so. The Bible says so. Therefore, God exists The Bible is to be believed because God wrote it. Premise 2 can only be true if we already know that God exists. But this is only established in the conclusion. To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the state; for it is highly conducive to the interests of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty, perfectly unlimited, of expressing his sentiments. Here, the premise is just the conclusion restated in a different form (p, therefore p). * Insufficient or unacceptable premises: False cause The fallacy of false cause is committed when one infers causal connection without having established the all the conditions of a causal connection. Ever since the capital punishment was abolished, the crime rate has been increasing. The abolishment of capital punishment is the reason for there is more crime. This is an example of a Post Hoc fallacy (‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ or after this, therefore because of this). One thing happening after another does not mean that one caused the other—post hoc fallacy makes this mistake. A newspaper report of a scientific research study: Psychologists have discovered that most male scientists make their major discoveries in their late twenties and thirties, which is also the period when“Reasoning About Social Issues” Petrenko Anton, PhD Hours: By appointment (Monday 11:30-12:30) E-Mail: [email protected] AP/MODR1730 D * My neighbour must have lost his job. He was home three days last week. 1. The initial observations, prompting the explanatory hypothesis are true (plausible) 2. Testability: The explanation allows to draw testable predictions 3. Scope and Fruitfulness: The explanation explains as many or more observed facts as alternatives, and it explains more diverse phenomena than the alternative 4. Simplicity: The explanation relies on fewer unproven claims or assumptions 5. Conservatism: The explanation fits with existing (confirmed) knowledge. Abductive Argument 6. Compare an explanation to other possible explanations. Incidents of violence among people twelve through twenty-one have been increasing over the past twenty years. During that same period, The Simpsons has become one of the most popular TV shows among people in that age group. By teaching a disrespect for authority, The Simpsons is clearly contributing to the rise in violence. 1. Temporal priority: event A (the alleged cause) always precedes event B (the alleged effect). 2. Reasonable mechanism (spatial connection): a reasonable mechanism should be conceivable that enables the causal relation between two events (intervening cause). 3. Covariance: The two events must vary together; as one varies (e.g. increases or decreases), the other also varies (increases or decreases). 4. Have other possible causes (other potential causal factors) been ruled out (controlled)? Causal Argument We cannot blame men or women for sexual infidelity. Recent research has shown that animals cheat sexually all the time. Why should the situation be any different with humans? Female animals look for males who show signs of biological fitness, and will mate with such a male even if they are already bonded with another male. The same is also true of male animals. Just so it is with humans. As we should not blame animals for sexual infidelity, neither should we blame human beings for sexual infidelity. 1. Truth of the reasons: are the two things compared similar in the required way? 2. Are the known similar properties relevant to the property one is trying to infer? 3. How high is the number of similar characteristics (the higher, the stronger the analogy). 4. How varied are the shared characteristics (the greater variety of similar characteristics, the better) 5. Are there any significant disanalogies (or dissimilarities) that cast doubt on the conclusion? Argument from Analogy We cannot blame men or women for sexual infidelity. Recent research has shown that animals cheat sexually all the time. Why should the situation be any different with humans? Female animals look for males who show signs of biological fitness, and will mate with such a male even if they are already bonded with another male. The same is also true of male animals. J“Reasoning About Social Issues” Petrenko Anton, PhD Hours: By appointment (Monday 11:30-12:30) E-Mail: [email protected] AP/MODR1730 D * This lecture will introduce students to fallacies in argumentation. This lecture will focus on fallacies (of irrelevance) with irrelevant premises. Lecture Objectives Ad hominem Genetic Fallacy Appeal to force/threat Appeal to popular sentiment Appeal to emotion Straw man Appeal to Ignorance Equivocation Red herring * Irrelevant Premises: Ad hominem The fallacy of appeal to the person (ad hominem means ‘to the man’) is when one argues to reject the claim by criticizing the person who makes the claim rather than the claim itself. Example: You can’t believe anything Beachemin says about federalism because she is a known separatist. …because she is gay, or feminist, or has socialist friends… What Beachemin says about federalism is not true Beachemin is a separatist Who or what a person is (their life choices or beliefs) are irrelevant to the strength or weakness of their arguments. Any person can make a strong argument. This is a variety of fallacy against the person. It attacks the inconsistency or person’s relationship to the claim: “Ellen claims smoking is bad, but she smokes. So smoking is not bad.” (Whether she smokes is irrelevant to the conclusion that smoking is bad) Tu quoque (hypocrisy/circumstance) * Irrelevant Premises: Genetic Fallacy The genetic fallacy is committed when one argues that a claim is true or false solely because of its origin. (It is close to ad hominem, but does not involve attacking the character or circumstances of the person) Of course he would say don’t raise taxes. He is rich. So, his claims are untrue. … (or he is a liberal, or conservative, or mason) Helen is of a European descent Helen’s views on Aboriginal rights are not true Example: Poisoning the well (discredit the source) Another fallacy, called poisoning the well is similar to genetic fallacy. The person tries to undermine the point by discrediting the source even before the claim is made. * Irrelevant Premises: Appeal to force/threat Fallacy of appeal to force is committed when some kind of force or (threat of) violence is used to bring about the acceptance of the view. Say that you like me bossing you around, or… If I was out of bounds, then I will take my ball and go home I was not out of bounds Example: In appeal to force, the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. For example: “Either I am right, or else you don’t get to use my car.” The question at issue is if the person is right or not, the threat use force is not relevant to that question (although can be influential). * Irrelevant Premises: Appeal to popular sentiment The fallacy of appeal to popular sentiment is committed when one argues that the claim is true or acceptable because some group feels or thinks it is so. Most people approve of the government’s decision not to pay for in