Mid-Term (Questions) Flashcards
Which of the following passages contain arguments? For each argument you find, specify what the conclusion is and justify your decisions.
- Where is Alexei planning on taking his annual vacation this year?
This is not an argument. Rather, it’s a question. An argument needs a conclusion and premise; however, this is just a question as it does not contain any. To turn the question into an argument, you could say, “Where is the best place for Alexei to take his annual vacation this year?” Changing the question to an opinion-based one creates an argument as many arguments arise since different vacation spots contain various reasons for being the best.
Which of the following passages contain arguments? For each argument you find, specify what the conclusion is and justify your decisions.
- Iron Man was a better superhero movie than Thor because technology is just way cooler than mythology.
This passage contains an argument. It’s stating that Iron Man was a better superhero movie than Thor because technology is cooler than mythology. So the conclusion is Iron Man was a better movie, and the reasoning/premises to support that claim was because technology is cooler than mythology. Although it fails to produce a reason as to why the film’s overall production is better in Iron Man compared to Thor, it still provides a justified argument as to why the character and idea of the film are better.
Which of the following passages contain arguments? For each argument you find, specify what the conclusion is and justify your decisions.
- Many believe that there is no soul and the mind is simply a result of electrical and chemical signals interacting with the brain. So, they think that consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon. I reject this notion!
Although this one is tricky and somewhat falls into a gray area, I would still say it is an argument. If you take out the last line saying, “I reject this notion!” and fall back onto the basics of an argument in which all need a premise and conclusion, it does contain an argument. For instance, the conclusion is that consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon and does not contain a soul. The premise is that the body is simply a result of electrical and chemical signals interacting with the brain. As I stated, this passage is difficult because you could also factor in the religious standpoint concerning the soul.
Which of the following contains an argument? For each argument, specify both the conclusion and the premises, and justify your decisions.
- You have neglected your duty on several occasions, and you have been absent from work too many times. You are not fit to serve in your current position.
This passage contains an argument because it follows the formula to create an argument. For instance, reasons/premises were given to back up the argument’s conclusion. The premises are because the employee neglected their duty and has been absent from work too many times. Therefore, the conclusion to the argument is the person is not fit to serve in their current position, and it is assumed the next step is getting fired.
Which of the following contains an argument? For each argument, specify both the conclusion and the premises, and justify your decisions.
- Racial profiling is not an issue for white people, but it is a serious issue for visible minorities.
I would say this passage does not contain an argument but is more of a statement. It has two claims: racial profiling is not an issue for white people, and racial profiling is a serious issue for visible minorities. Although it contains two claims, it fails to present a premise to back up those claims. If it stated how visible minorities are affected more than white people in society within the passage, it would be considered an argument as the premise would be how they are affected more. This would conclude that it is a severe issue for visible minorities.
Which of the following contains an argument? For each argument, specify both the conclusion and the premises, and justify your decisions.
- Dianne’s blog is always interesting. Her commentaries are tough, but they’re always fair. Her blog should definitely be on your reading list!
This passage is an argument because it states the premises as to why her blog should be on the reading list: Dianne’s blog is always interesting, and her commentaries are tough but always fair. The overall point and conclusion are why Dianne’s blog should be on our reading list. Since it states a clear conclusion with points to back up the claim, it is considered an argument.
For the following passage, determine whether or not there is an argument present. If so, identify the premises and the conclusion, and justify your decisions.
- Although Canadians like to think that we are a fair and just society, this is a boldfaced lie. Indigenous peoples in Canada have never, ever been treated fairly. Over hundreds of years, the Canadian government and non-indigenous Canadians have treated them badly. Today, many people in Indigenous communities live in terrible conditions. People can talk about our fairness all they want, but there is no doubt that treatment of Indigenous peoples is abhorrent.
This passage contains an argument. It possesses both premises and conclusions in order to make an argument. For instance, one conclusion in the passage could be how Indigenous people are not treated fair and just in society. However, another claim could be how the Indigenous people’s treatment is abhorrent. Furthermore, the premises to back up these claims are how, over hundreds of years, the Canadian government and non-indigenous Canadians have treated them poorly and that Indigenous people had to live in terrible conditions. Therefore, since premises and conclusions are present, it makes an argument.
For the following passage, determine whether or not there is an argument present. If so, identify the premises and the conclusion, and justify your decisions.
- Although Canadians like to think that we are a fair and just society, this is a boldfaced lie. Indigenous peoples in Canada have never, ever been treated fairly. Over hundreds of years, the Canadian government and non-indigenous Canadians have treated them badly. Today, many people in Indigenous communities live in terrible conditions. People can talk about our fairness all they want, but there is no doubt that treatment of Indigenous peoples is abhorrent.
This passage contains an argument. It possesses both premises and conclusions in order to make an argument. For instance, one conclusion in the passage could be how Indigenous people are not treated fair and just in society. However, another claim could be how the Indigenous people’s treatment is abhorrent. Furthermore, the premises to back up these claims are how, over hundreds of years, the Canadian government and non-indigenous Canadians have treated them poorly and that Indigenous people had to live in terrible conditions. Therefore, since premises and conclusions are present, it makes an argument.
Exercise 3.2: For each of the following arguments, follow the four-step procedure to determine whether it is deductive or inductive, valid or invalid, and strong or weak. State the results of applying each step.
- All dogs are loyal. All dogs are good guard animals. It necessarily follows that all loyal animals are good guard animals.
The argument concludes that all loyal animals are good guard animals. The premises supporting that claim are that all dogs are loyal and all dogs are good guard animals. Since the premises are accepted, the conclusion is also accepted, meaning the argument is deductive. However, the argument is invalid because the claim can’t be entirely true since the premises are about dogs, whereas the conclusion states, “all loyal animals are good guard animals.” In order to make this a valid argument, the conclusion would say, “It necessarily follows that all loyal dogs are good guard dogs.”
Exercise 3.2: For each of the following arguments, follow the four-step procedure to determine whether it is deductive or inductive, valid or invalid, and strong or weak. State the results of applying each step.
- A vase was found broken on the floor, some money has been taken out of the safe, and there were strange scratches on the wall. I think that someone must have burglarized the place.
The premises are a vase was found broken, money had been taken out of the safe, and there were scratches on the wall. Therefore the conclusion is that someone must have burglarized the place. This is an inductive argument because the conclusion is not absolute; instead, it is a probability that the place was robbed. Also, the argument is weak because there are still unanswered questions. For instance, did the place have animals that could have knocked over a vase or scratched walls? Since there are questions left unanswered, the argument is weak.
Exercise 3.2: For each of the following arguments, follow the four-step procedure to determine whether it is deductive or inductive, valid or invalid, and strong or weak. State the results of applying each step.
- If everything were all right, there would be no blood on the floor. Of course, there is plenty of blood on the floor. Therefore, everything is not all right.
The claim in this argument is that everything is not all right. The premises that back up the argument are that if everything were all right, there would be no blood on the floor. However, there is plenty of blood on the floor. This argument is deductive because the conclusion is absolute, and the premises are accepted since there is blood on the floor, and everything would be all right if there were no blood on the floor. Therefore everything is not all right since there is, in fact, blood on the floor. This argument is valid because since the premises are true, the conclusion is also true.
Exercise 3.2: For each of the following arguments, follow the four-step procedure to determine whether it is deductive or inductive, valid or invalid, and strong or weak. State the results of applying each step.
- If store windows are being broken all over town, the hockey riot has started. So the riot has begun. Dozens of windows have already been broken.
The premises in the argument are that windows have been broken all over town. The claim is that the hockey riot has started. This would be a deductive argument because the premises are true; therefore, the conclusion must also be accepted. The argument is also valid because since the premise of windows being broken all over town is true, the conclusion of the hockey riot is also true.
Exercise 3.3: For each of the following arguments, by using the four steps, indicate whether it is valid or invalid, strong or weak.
- A recent Gallup poll says that 69 percent of Canadians believe in the existence of heaven, but only 43 percent believe in hell. People are just too willing to engage in wishful thinking.
The premises in this argument are that 69 percent of Canadians believe in the existence of heaven, but only 43 percent believe in hell. Therefore, people are just too willing to engage in wishful thinking. This is an inductive argument because it is all based on statistics of others’ opinions. Therefore, most people are likely to be true, but it is not absolute. The argument is also weak because we don’t know what religion these Canadians are a part of; therefore, it can’t be strong since we are still left with unanswered questions.
Exercise 3.3: For each of the following arguments, by using the four steps, indicate whether it is valid or invalid, strong or weak.
- You failed your driver’s test twice. You’ve had three traffic tickets in the last two years. And your own brother won’t let you drive him to hockey practice. It’s pretty clear you’re not a very good driver.
The premises are because you failed your driver’s test twice, had three traffic tickets in the last two years, and your own brother won’t let you drive him to hockey practice. Therefore the conclusion is you’re not a good driver. This argument is deductive because it gives many reasons that lead to an absolute conclusion that you’re not a good driver. Also, the argument is valid because since the premises are true, therefore the conclusion is true and can’t be false.
Exercise 3.4.1: For each of the following arguments, state the implicit premises that will make the argument valid.
- If you get a good grade on your essay, it’s because I gave you excellent feedback on your first draft. I must have given you excellent feedback on your first draft.
The argument’s conclusion is, “I must have given you excellent feedback on your first draft.” The premise in the argument to back up the claim is, “If you get a good grade on your essay, it’s because I gave you excellent feedback on your first draft.” However, the implicit premise that will make the argument valid is that you got a good grade.
