Homework answers / question archive / For each argument, tell whether it is question-begging, self-sealing, or complex question; or whether there’s nothing wrong with the argument at all

For each argument, tell whether it is question-begging, self-sealing, or complex question; or whether there’s nothing wrong with the argument at all

Philosophy

Share With

---

For each argument, tell whether it is question-begging, self-sealing, or complex question; or whether there’s nothing wrong with the argument at all. If the argument is question-begging, indicate which kind of question-begging it is: synonymous, generalization, or circular.

1. Some skeptics claim that people who report seeing flying saucers are not really careful observers and probably were mistaken about what they thought they saw. But, in fact, people who report seeing flying saucers are careful observers—for if they weren’t careful observers they wouldn’t have seen the flying saucers at all, would they?

2. We should find the defendant not guilty. There is certainly reasonable doubt about his identity as the robber: He was identified by only one person; she admitted under cross-examination that she wasn’t really certain of the identification; and the faulty lineup from which she originally identified the defendant was not a fair one. So those are reasons for reasonable doubt, and given that reasonable doubt, we should return a verdict of not guilty. Besides, the defendant had an excellent and believable alibi, and that alone is enough to convince me that it is doubtful that this defendant is the person who robbed the jewellery store, and thus that we should vote not guilty. Those points put together add up to a verdict of not guilty.

3. Atheists should not be allowed to speak on state college campuses, since people who deny the existence of God should be banned from speaking at state colleges.

4. Alcoholism cannot be considered a disease. Alcoholism is a serious social problem, and no social problem should be classified as a disease.

5. How might this survey question be a definitional problem? And how might it be a complex-question problem?

You have felt psychologically unsafe while at work:

Strongly agree.

Agree.

Disagree.

Strongly disagree.

6. In a Congressional hearing, journalist Matt Taibbi was grilled by Rep. Debbie Wasserman

Schultz (Fla). In an attempt to discredit what he found in the Twitter Files, she claimed (in the form of a rhetorical question) that he did it merely for the money. “You made money. Yes, or

no?” Wasserman Schultz asked.

Her question could be construed as a complex-question. How so?

Her question could also be construed as an ad hominem. How so?7. How might this be a leading question?

How well did our product meet your needs?

8. How might this be a loaded or complex question?

How well did our product meet your needs?

9. Rewrite the following sentence in proper categorical form:

All members of the Moose Club but George are entitled to join the meeting.

10. Is this argument valid or invalid? Justify your answer in one line.

“It is false that some airplanes are craft that have circled the globe without refueling. Therefore, it’s false that all airplanes are craft that have circled the globe without refuelling.”

11. Question: There are two ways that this list of possible causes might be a false dilemma (or tri-lemma). How so?

None of the archaic humans or humanoids survive today—notably, the Neanderthal, the

Denisovan, and the Hobbit. Not a single one. All have gone extinct, vanishing save for traces of artifacts and bones in our wilderness and fragments of DNA in our genome. What happened to them all? The possible causes of extinction are these:

· extinction from parasites and pathogens;

· extinction from interbreeding into humanity;

· extinction from inability to adapt to climate change;

12. NYT: NEWS: “Dan says lead author of a mask review misrepresented its findings, apologizes

for summary statement that was imprecise and says they will update it. They say their review

did NOT find masks don’t work.”

Maybe Dan should not have apologized. In terms of appeal to ignorance, how so?

13. Name three things wrong with this argument

We can either keep all marijuana use illegal, or we can legalize marijuana and eliminate all restrictions on the sale and use of marijuana. But it would be absurd to eliminate all restrictions on marijuana: that would mean that school children could buy marijuana out of vending machines, and people could smoke marijuana as they drive, and marijuana could be advertised to children during Saturday morning cartoons. Clearly, then, we must keep all uses of marijuana strictly illegal.14. What fallacy is committed in this passage? Briefly explain

Some people object to the logo of the Cleveland Indians, claiming that “Chief Wahoo” is offensive to Native Americans, that it is probably racist, and that at the very least it is in very bad taste. But, in fact, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Indians’ logo; after all, lots of Indians fans from throughout Ohio love the logo, and clothing and capes with Chief Wahoo anthem are among the top sellers of baseball merchandise. That many fans certainly can’t be wrong!

15. Restate this statement in disjunctive form:

Donate to my campaign, if you care about our country!

16. What argument does the following Venn diagram represent? Is it valid? If not, what are two

possible conclusions?

X is on the middle of the line indicating that

it is in more than one area.