Chapter One, p.10 #2
Premise: Atheists do not attend church
Premise: Jones is an atheist
Conclusion: Jones does not attend churchThey key
concept is atheism -- this is the concept which links "Jones" with the behaviour
of "not attending church." Both premises are acceptable (certainly not
straightforwardly false) and hence the argument is probably sound given the definition of
soundness you have already learned: true premises and valid reasoning.
#4, p. 10
Premise: Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima caused great suffering.
Conclusion: We ought not to have dropped the bomb.
You need to ask yourself what the key concept is here. For it is
necessary in this argument to supply a missing premise, namely, the premise which will
link the existing premise to the conclusion in a logical way. And the missing premise
always will contain the key concept.
Perhaps the best way to go about this is to ask the question:
"Why should the fact that the bomb caused great suffering lead to the
conclusion that it ought not to have been dropped?" And the answer is that it only
leads to, or supports the conclusion if causing great suffering is never
justifiable. In other words, the argument as it is given is not complete -- there is a
missing or unexpressed premise which must be supplied or made explicit in order for the
reasoning to be clear. There are different ways to express this missing premise:
"Causing great suffering is never justifiable"
"No action causing great suffering is morally justifiable"
"If something causes great suffering it ought never to be done" etc. etc.
Whatever the phrasing, however, some premise like this is necessary to get the complete
analysis:
Premise: Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima caused great suffering.
Premise: "If something causes great suffering it ought never to be done"
Conclusion: We ought not to have dropped the bomb.
This argument, of course, is trickier than the previous one and
many of you will consider it unsound. Since the first premise is relatively factual and
uncontroversial, it is the second premise that contains the problem. Two points will let
you get a good critical response off the ground: the author of the argument is clearly a
pacifist and the context of the bomb dropping was war. What follows is a sample response
consisting in an argument for the unsoundness of #4:
"Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima did in fact cause great
suffering, but that does not necessarily mean that we shouldn't have dropped it. After
all, it was dropped during a war in order to defeat an imperialist power with the fewest
possible allied casualties. A total pacifist might argue the wrongness of dropping it.
However, I would say that in some situations suffering, unfortunately, must be caused, And
this was one of those times." |
| #7, p.10 Premise -- All nature is a circle of moods
Premise -- I am a part of nature
Therefore -- My moods will rise and fall like a circle
I've eliminated the verbiage from this one and broken it down
into its logical structure. Here is a sample explanation of why it is weak (this is longer
than I expect of your own explanations): "Tides, seasons, etc. are described as the
'moods of nature,' and they do, in fact, rise and fall, come and go, according to natural
laws. On the other hand, human moods are more subject to our conscious will. For example,
I might wake up in a bad mood, but I can't just expect it to pass naturally. Indeed it
might get worse if I give in to it. Whereas if I turn my attention to something
constructive, I might 'snap out of it.' No matter how much we are a part of nature, our
'moods' are very different: does a wave ever say to itself 'I don't want to come in right
now,' and struggle back out to sea?" |
These exercises are in the form of the first test, so make
sure you follow the argument analyses. Check your own wording of the missing premises --
the wording here is not necessarily the only acceptable version. My responses are going to
be longer than what I expect from you and there is a large 'interpretive' component in the
responses. Still, it is essential that you are able to identify what Engel calls a
'suspect element' in an argument and to explain how it functions in the argument.
31/30
All Phi Beta Kappas are bookworms
She is Phi Beta Kappa
Therefore: She is a bookworm
Phi Beta Kappas are members of a group with extremely high IQs so it is likely
that many of them read a lot of books. But that certainly doesn’t apply to every PBK
and she might be one who doesn’t read a lot of books. Moreover, a person who reads a
lot doesn’t necessarily have to be a "bookworm," that is, someone whose
whole life-experience seems to be bound up with words (rather than people, events, etc.).
Many of the PBKs who read a lot of books, therefore, might be very much involved in a
range of activities.
32/31
All crises created by human beings can be solved by human beings
The energy crisis is humanly created
Therefore the energy crisis can be solved by us
You have a choice in explaining the weakness of this argument. You can zero in
on the general weakness: broadly speaking, if we create a problem, we can solve
it, but often that is not the case -- when here is not time enough to solve a problem
(give an example). Or you can concentrate on the specific weakness as it applies
to the energy crisis. If you do that, then you'll have to make a brief comment about what
you mean by the energy crisis.
36/35
Nothing universal can be an evil
Death is universal
Therefore death cannot be an evil
Death is in fact universal. Putting aside any significance in the notion of an
afterlife, this statement just means that all human beings die; it happens to all of us;
we're mortal. But there is a big jump from agreeing that death is universal to saying it's
not an evil. For even though we all die not all deaths are equal. Let's say we're all
equals in that we die, but not all deaths are equal. It's obvious, for instance, that if a
person lives a rich, productive life and dies peacefully in bed surrounded by respectful,
loving relatives and friends, then the death is not "evil." Even if we wished he
or she might have lived a little longer for some reason, it is stretching it to say that
it was an evil. On the other hand, if a child brutally murdered, it is simply callous to
say "it's not an evil because he or she had to die some day."\
37/36
Every person is a slave either to money or fortune
A person cannot be both a slave and free
Therefore no person is free
Concepts like "slavery" and "freedom" contain a whole range
of degrees. Who, for instance, is absolutely free? In some ways I'm free and in others I'm
not: I'm not in jail, but I can't walk into Walmart and buy what I want. I'm not a Roman
slave, but I'm a slave to some of my passions. When it comes to money, I certainly need to
work for a living, but I'm not necessarily a slave when I'm working because I like my
work. A person who didn't like his or her work might be like a slave (though not a
Roman or Southern US slave), but it doesn’t follow that all people are slaves.
Regarding fortune, everyone is subject to bad weather on vacation or the possibility of
being run over by a Mac truck). In that sense we’re never free from fortune. Yet some
people have the capacity to go with the flow and not feel like a slave to it.
38/37
What is sought by everyone is good
Pleasure is sought by everyone (or: Everyone seeks pleasure)
Therefore pleasure is good
Pleasure by and large is one of life's goods. Who could find fault with simple
pleasures? But to say that pleasure is good in such a general, all-inclusive way is very
dubious. If a sadist gets pleasure in torturing and mutilating unwilling victims, it is
bizarre to say that his or her pleasure is "good" (at least in a moral sense)
even if a great deal of pleasure is in fact generated. This conclusion is based on equally
weak premises. The fact that everyone seeks something, in premise #1, for instance, does
not make that something good. They all might think it's good, but they could be deluded.
And in premise #2, even though most people like pleasure and some people seek it, it is
false to imply that everyone does what he or she does in order to gain pleasure. There are
a variety of motivations in life -- power, money, sex, fame, etc. -- and it is twisted to
say that people seek those things only for the pleasure they bring. After all, seeking
them often requires sacrifice, pain, effort and so on. |
| Examples
from class: "Ambitious people have caused mass destruction
throughout history. So I look to the day when ambition is eliminated from human
nature." Premise: Ambitious people have caused mass destruction
throughout history.
Missing Premise: Whatever causes mass destruction should be eliminated from human nature.
Conclusion: We should hope that someday ambition is eliminated from human nature.
You
might want to cut some of the verbiage and get closer to "pure" logical form.
Notice that the following change in wording does not change the logical gist of
this argument. It simply clarifies the reasoning:
Premise:
Ambition causes mass destruction.
Missing Premise: Whatever causes mass destruction should be eliminated.
Conclusion: Ambition should be eliminated.
***************************************************************
"I must lack
ambition. I’ve never felt the need for fame and fortune."
Missing
Premise: Ambitious people feel the need for fame and fortune.
Premise: I’ve never felt the need for fame and fortune.
Conclusion: I must lack ambition.
***************************************************************
In
both of the above arguments, "ambition" is the key concept. In the first one,
the person is over-generalizing by assuming that ambition should be eradicated because it
has caused mass destruction even though ambition has caused many good things. In the
second argument, the person is assuming that the meaning of ambition is reducible to
something like desiring fame and fortune. That's not the case. A person can be very
ambitious is a variety of tasks that will never bring fame and fortune. |
