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
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
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)
Block of exclusion
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
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)
Inconsistency ad hominem
Justified exception to the rule
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?
"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.
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)
Preview of Solution_-_DeVry_Phil447_Q1_to_Q25_MCQ.docx
Preview of Solution_-_DeVry_Phil447_Q1_to_Q8.docx