Discussion Questions Module 2

.docx

School

Arizona State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

MISC

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

4

Uploaded by MegaEchidnaMaster736

Discussion Questions Module 2 Section A 3.1*  (1; 2; 3; 5; 7; 9; 11) 1. What is a deductive argument? A deductive argument is intended to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion. 2. What is an inductive argument? An inductive argument is intended to provide probable—not conclusive—support for its conclusion. 3. Are inductive arguments truth-preserving? Why or why not? The structure of an inductively strong argument cannot guarantee that the conclusion is true if the premises are true but the conclusion can be rendered probable and worthy of acceptance. Because the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises, inductive arguments are not truth-preserving. 5. What kind of guarantee does a deductive argument provide when it is valid? A deductive argument that succeeds in providing such decisive logical support is said to be valid. 7. What is the difference between an inductively strong argument and an inductively weak one? An inductive argument that succeeds in providing probable but not conclusion logical support for its conclusion is said to be strong. An inductive argument that fails to provide such support is said to be weak. 9. What is the term for strong arguments that have true premises? they are said to be cogent 11. What logical conclusion can you draw about an argument that is valid but has a false conclusion? false premises and a false conclusion 3.2  (1*; 3; 5) 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. Indicate the results of applying each step. 1. Either Jack is lying, or he is not. If his ears turn red, he’s lying. If they don’t turn red, he’s telling the truth. His ears are red. Jack is lying. Step2: Deductive, valid 3. If you go to that party, you’re completely nuts. You’re going to the party. It necessarily follows that you’re nuts. Step 2: Deductive, valid Step 3: inductively strong Step 4: Inductively weak 5. All philosophers are absent-minded. All philosophers are teachers. It necessarily follows that all absent-minded people are teachers. Step 2: Not Deductively valid Step 3: Not inductively strong Step 4: Deductively invalid 3.3  (1*; 2; 5)
1. Alice says that nothing is sacred. So, intolerance toward other religions is okay.   Invalid and weak 2. Social welfare is by definition a handout to people who have not worked for it. But giving people money that they have not earned through labor is not helping anyone. It follows then that social welfare does not help anyone. Invalid and strong. 5. Any sitcom that tries to imitate The Big Bang Theory is probably a piece of trash. All of this season’s sitcoms try to ape Big Bang. They’ve gotta be trash. Invalid and strong. 3.4 I  (2*) 2. Not everyone in this country has health insurance. Therefore, healthcare is a disaster. Implicit premise Not everyone in this country has health insurance. 3.4 II  (2*) 2. Aziz regularly eats at McDonald’s, so Aziz is likely to gain a few pounds. Premise: McDonalds is an unhealthy place with fatty foods. 3.5  (2*; 3; 4) 2. If the butler didn’t kill the master, then the maid did. Valid, Modus Ponens The butler didn’t kill him. So the maid killed him. 3. Either John drove home or he stayed late. Valid, Disjunctive Syllogism He didn’t drive home. Therefore, he stayed late. 4. If the South Africans have nuclear weapons, the South African jungle will be radioactive. Invalid, Affirming the Consequent 3.6  (1*) 1. If God is in his heaven, then all is right with the world . Modus Ponens Section B 3.2  (7; 11; 13) 7. People with high IQs also have psychic abilities. People with high SAT scores—which are comparable to high IQ scores—also probably have psychic abilities. Step 1: Conclusion People with high SAT scores, which are comparable to high IQ scores also probably have psychic abilities. Premises: People with high IQs also have psychic abilities. Step 2: Not deductively valid. Step 3: Not inductively strong. Step 4: Inductively weak
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help