Philosophy 130: Quiz 2    name:

Part 1: Key Concepts

Match the terms with the best fitting characterization or definition from the right.  Answer in the leftmost column. (15 pts.)

1. _C_

2. _J_

3. _I_

4. _H_

5. _B_

6. _G_

7. _L_  

8. _M_

9. _K_

10. _N_

11. _D_

12. _E_

13. _A_

14. _F_

15. _O_

1.  ad hominem fallacy

2.  appeal to authority

3.  appeal to consequences

4.  appeal to force

5. appeal to sympathy

6. experiential evidence

7.  fallacy of composition

8.  fallacy of division

9.  genetic fallacy

10. invalid

11.  law of excluded middle

12.  law of noncontradiction

13.  self-evidence

14.  stipulative definition

15.  valid

A.  evidence that comes from understanding the very meaning of the words themselves in a statement.
B.  fallacy that irrelevantly appeals to pity or compassion in support of a conclusion, rather than appealing to considerations directly bearing on the conclusion.
C.  fallacy which seeks to motivate rejection of a view by drawing attention to undesirable characteristics of the person who holds it, rather that drawing attention to the merits or demerits of the view itself.
D.  Every statement is either true of false.
E.  No statement is both true and false.
F.  a nonstandard assignment of meaning for a term, decreed by a speaker or writer for some specific use.
G. evidence coming from sensory perception -- from what's seen, heard, smelled, felt, or tasted.
H.  fallacy in which a threat is advanced as a reason for accepting a belief.
I.  type of fallacy that directs attention to the practical advantages of a belief rather than the evidence for it.. 
J.  fallacy of deferring to someone else's opinion when, in fact, you are no less competent to judge on the matter than the person deferred to.
K. fallacy that evaluates a belief according to its source rather than according to the relevant evidence.

L. the mistake of concluding that a property applies to the whole of something because it applies to each of its parts.

M. the mistake of concluding that a property applies to one or more of the parts because it applies to the whole.

N. an argument whose premises, if true, fail to guarantee the truth of its conclusion: it's possible for such an argument to have true premises and a false conclusion.

O. an argument whose premises, if true, guarantee the truth of its conclusion: it is impossible for such an argument to have true premises and a false conclusion.

Part 2: Multiple Choice: choose the best answer & write the letter of the answer on the left.

  1. Suppose an argument has three premises, all certainly true.  From just this, what can we tell about the argument?
    1. The argument is valid.
    2. The argument is sound.
    3. Both A and B.
    4. None of the above.
  1. Suppose an argument you know is valid has three premises.  Each of them, you think, has a seventy percent probability of being true.  How should you evaluate the argument?
    1. Certainly sound.
    2. Probably sound.
    3. Can’t tell.
    4. Probably unsound.
  1. Suppose there is a 50% probability that a patient classified critical and unstable will survive 24 hours and there are three critical and unstable patients in CCU.  What is the probability that all three will survive 24 hours?
    1. 1/2 (50%)
    2. 1/4 (25%)
    3. 1/8 (12.5%)
    4. 1/16 (6.25%)
  1. Suppose it’s 40% probable that the MSU Women’s Basketball Team will make the Elite 8 & 20% probable, if they make the Elite 8, that they’ll make the Final 4.  How probable is it the team will make the Elite 8 and the Final 4?
    1. .08 (8%)
    2. .8 (80%)
    3. .2 (20%)
    4. .6 (60%)
  2. What is the probability that the team will make the Elite 8 but not the Final 4, based on the %-s above?
    1. .64 (64%)
    2. .32 (32%)
    3. .16 (16%)
    4. .08 (8%)
  3. What is the probability that the team will not make the Elite 8, based on the %-s above?
    1. .08 (8%)
    2. .8 (80%)
    3. .2 (20%)
    4. .6 (60%)
  4. Which of the following should be evaluated as certainly true based on their self-evidence?
    1. All cats have whiskers.
    2. Either there’s life on other planets or there isn’t.
    3. Cats can’t talk.
    4. All of the above.
  5. Which of the following Yogi-isms is clearly NOT self-evidently false, or impossible?
    1. Nobody goes to that restaurant anymore, it's too crowded.
    2. I ain't in no slump. I just ain't hitting.
    3. If you come to a fork in the road, take it.  {it’s an imperative not a statement}
    4. I didn't really say everything I said.
  1. Suppose there is a seventy percent probability of rain and a seventy percent probability the picnic will be cancelled if it rains.  How should you evaluate the statement, It will rain and the picnic will be cancelled?
    1. Certainly true.
    2. Probably true.
    3. Can’t tell.
    4. Certainly false.

Part 3: Exercises: Do both 1 (below) and 2 (on back)              name:

1.  Clarify the following using the standard clarifying format.  Then evaluate using the standard format for evaluation naming any fallacies committed under LOGIC, SOUNDNESS, or CONVERSATIONAL RELEVANCE.  (7 pts. total.) 

Hundreds of those who disregarded evacuation orders and stayed in New Orleans to “ride out” Hurricane Katrina died.  Given the greatness of their suffering, it’s absurd to suggest that they are in any way responsible for their own deaths.

Clarification

Evaluation

 Exercise 2 is on the back.



2 .  Fully clarify and evaluate the following argument: evaluate the premises as can’t tell or as certainly or probably true or false; identify its logical form or otherwise assess its validity (as by counterexample); and follow all other guidelines for clarifying and evaluating.  (9 pts. total)

I expect the MSU men’s basketball team to make the Elite 8.  I feel the Spartan women will too. I conclude that both the men’s and women’s teams will make the Elite 8.  (Assume the probability that the MSU men’s team makes the Elite 8 is 50% and the probability that the MSU women’s team makes the Elite 8 is 40%).

Clarification

Evaluation