| page 9/10 | page 24/25 | page 26/27 | page 118-123 | page 176-178 | page 180-185 |
| Sample Test | Test One | Test Two | Test Three | page 234-241 |
Chapter One, p.10 #2
Premise: Atheists do not
attend church
Premise: Jones is an atheist
Conclusion: Jones does not attend church
They 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
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?
31.
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.
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
33.
We can only have ideas of what we experience
We do not experience divine attributes & operations
Therefore we cannot have an idea of God (or "divinity")
"Experience" is the key concept around which Hume's argument turns, and (like "nature" or "natural" in #7, p.10) it is a very ambiguous concept. Looked at closely, moreover, he is clearly giving it the very narrow meaning of sense-experience. In other words, the conclusion that we cannot have an idea of God only follows if the first premise assumes that we can only have ideas about what we see, taste, touch, hear and smell; and if the second premise, therefore, assumes that we don't see, taste, touch, hear, or smell God. This assumption that we can only have ideas, or think about what we experience through our senses is, however, not necessarily true. A religious person who prays, for instance, might "experience" God in prayer and talk of the experience in a variety of ways: "touched by the presence of God," "God spoke to me," etc. These phrases do not imply the physical presence of God. After all, God is a "spiritual" being, isn’t he/she? In sum, the idea the person retains of God afterwards is derived from a non-sensory type of experience. Hume should realize that the same applies when we experience a friend, parent or lover. Is our knowledge of them -- our ideas, thoughts, notions -- reducible to sense-experiences, or rather, do we not always sense the "person" as something over and above this body we see, feel, etc. in front of us? If that is the case regarding a person then it can be said of the world as a whole.
36.
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.
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.
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.
41.
Those who haven’t got tickets can’t get in.
The people in the line haven’t got tickets.
Therefore, the people in the line can’t get in.
43.
He that is of God, hears God’s words.
You are not of God.
Therefore, you hear them not.
45.
Buildings that have cross-crowned spires are churches.
This building has a cross-crowned spire.
Therefore, this building must be a church.
47.
People who are fond of children make excellent kindergarten
teachers.
You are fond of children.
Therefore, you would make an excellent kindergarten teacher.
2. Division: Because the jury as a group rendered a decision that impartially took into account all aspects of the alleged crime, we need not believe that Mr. Black, when separated from the influence of the views of the other members of the jury, would prove to be as capable or as impartial as the others.
5. Hypostatization: "Nature" is not a person; therefore, it is doubtful that it is aware that our wells are going dry and need "replenishing," to say nothing of the absurdity of believing we can wait, "millions of years" for it to happen.
8. Composition: Although no one member of this committee is especially outstanding, that does not mean that by pooling their individual resources they could not bring in an able report. I may not be able to push a car that has stalled, but two or three of us together could easily do so.
10. Amphiboly: The statement seems to assert that the teachers' salaries will be paid with the deficit, which is absurd. No doubt the speaker intended to say that the fund from which the teachers' salaries will be paid has a deficit of $57,000.
12. Equivocation: In the one case we are talking about selling one's body for sexual purposes, while in the other case we are talking about selling oneself for the purpose of work and employment. The two senses in which the word is used are vastly different and should not be treated as equivalent. The latter type of "selling' does not necessarily cheapen and degrade a person in the way the former does.
13. Composition: To make a rug one needs to know how to do many other things, not just tie simple knots. One must know special weaves and how to put the whole thing together. And even if more intricate knots and weaves were not necessary, their coordination into a rug might still be beyond a person's capacity, requiring special ability or training.
14. Amphiboly: The billboard sign could be understood to assert: (a) come to us to get an unwanted pregnancy; or (b) come to us to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy. Although the latter reading was no doubt intended, the loose structure admits of the former interpretation as well. All this may have been avoided had the sign stated: "Come to us if you have an unwanted pregnancy.'
15. Accent: If the stress is on thou, the implication is that although you may not bear false witness, someone else may; if the stress is on thy neighbour, the implication is that it may be all right to bear false witness against anyone else; if the stress is on false witness, then the intended meaning is conveyed-that you must not speak falsehoods against others, but you may always, of course, speak the truth.
17. Accent: Accent your and the statement implies that one should love only one's own neighbour; accent neighbour and it implies that one should love only neighbours, not strangers.
21. Amphiboly: Is the welding to be done with the instruction book? Or is it to be done with the aid and instruction provided by it? The structure of the sentence admits both readings.
22. Hypostatization: Although it does not generally hurt to try to inspire ourselves in any way that is reasonable, this one might be highly manipulative-for, after all, how many of the four billion people in the world indeed know us, and of those few who do, how many care one way or another what we do?
23. Equivocation: The fact that there was a "presumption' of the mans innocence-that there were grounds for believing him to be innocent (and therefore there is a need to consider the evidence very carefully)-does not mean that the man can be "presumed' innocent-that we can take it for granted he is (and need to consider no more evidence). In the first case we begin with the assumption that he is innocent and move from there with the evidence; in the second case we rest with the assumption.
26. Hypostatization: The copier is spoken of as if it were a person that knows how to look after itself, that can tell another where it is hurt, and so on. "See how smart it is,' the ad implies. (There is also a question here about the surveys mentioned: How many copiers customers were surveyed? Who surveyed them?)
28. Accent: By stressing Jones, one implies that only Jones thinks so; by stressing thinks, one implies that Jones only thinks so but doesn't really know; by stressing McIntosh, one suggests that Jones thinks only Mclntosh will succeed but no one else. By stressing the other words in the statement, still other interpretations can be offered.
29. Equivocation: The fact that Touchstone accuses Corin, the shepherd, of never having seen good manners (i.e., courtly graces and etiquette) does not mean Corin's manners (his conduct or behaviour from a moral, not just a social point of view) are bad or wicked.
33. Accent: If the emphasis is on few, the slogan appears to mean the Marines are looking for only a few good men, not for many; if the emphasis is on men, it seems to say they are looking only for men and not women. Also, if the stress is on Marines, the implication is that only the Marines and not the other services are looking for good men; and if the stress is on looking, the implication is that they do not believe they will find them.
34. Amiphiboly: This statement can be taken to mean that the advertiser does not use machinery to tear your clothes; it tears them very carefully by hand. No doubt what was intended was that the firm launders clothes by hand and so there is no machinery to tear them, as is often the case with cleaning plants that use machinery.
36. Accent: Stress I and the statement implies that only the speaker (but not anyone else) hopes you'll stay for lunch; stress you and it implies that the speaker hopes only you (but not anyone else) will stay; stress lunch and it implies that the invitation is just for lunch; stress hope and the remark is a sincere invitation.
37. Amphiboly: The wording of this ad implies that the lost briefcase was wearing eyeglasses. The intended meaning, no doubt, is that the lost briefcase contains a pair of eyeglasses.
38. Amiphiboly: If the coach has nothing to say, how can he say it even once?
39. Hypostatization: While the merits of a National Theatre may be considerable, there is no tangible evidence of the existence of a 4( national Soul.' Although a body of a high order of rationality may be possessed of a soul, that is not the case with a nation, which is an abstraction.
40. Amphiboly: Rather than meaning that the elderly burn their victims, the headline probably intended to convey that the elderly are often the victims of burns.
41. Amphiboly: If no one goes there anymore, then, of course, far from being crowded, the place is really empty! Perhaps what Berra wanted to say was that since the place has become so popular (and therefore so crowded), many people no longer go there because of the crowd.
42. Equivocation: The fallacy turns on the meaning of the word authority. In the first part of the statement, the word is used to mean "someone with expertise and knowledge in the field of drugs.' When we learn, however, that a chief of police has been called to testify, the meaning of the word has obviously changed to "a person in a position of power or command.' If the committee needs to hear from an expert in the field of drugs, it will need to look elsewhere than to the chief of police.
44. Amphiboly: We seem to be told that if we want to experience the pain and agony of hell, then we should come to church next Sunday and listen to the new minister. One hopes that was not the intent of the announcement. More likely, its intent was to inform us that the new minister's sermon next Sunday will be on the topic "Mat is hell?"
46. Accent: Said sarcastically, this statement could be taken to mean the politicians are all crooked-that they all have their price and can be bought off. If said in a straightforward tone of voice, however, it asserts that the politicians are the best available.
47. Amiphiboly: Amphiboly can arise not only from the faulty arrangement of words within a sentence, but from the faulty or careless way we arrange our sentences or follow one sentence with another. Here, the arrangement makes it seem as if the writer is asking why he or she has six children rather than why he or she cannot get sick pay with which to feed all these children.
48. Division: The consumer's price index is arrived at by averaging out many different items. This being so, the index may rise without every item doing so. The price of butter and eggs may therefore stay the same or even go down.
50. Hypostatization: Nature, an abstract idea, cannot have any "children' to take care of. What the statement probably means is that there is a survival instinct inherent in all creatures guaranteeing their continued existence.
52. Composition: If each manufacturer does so individually, it is a case ofprice-setting; but if all of them do it together, that is collusion and a case, indeed, of price-fixing (as the passage itself suggests).
53. Amphiboly: Does the writer mean to tell us that (a) it amused him to flatter women (where flattering is used as the verb form known as a gerund); or that (b) it amused him to have women flatter him (where flattering is used as an a(tective)?
54. Accent: Accent she and the statement implies that it was someone else who did so; accent today and it is a sarcastic remark implying she will probably try to do so another day.
55. Division: The fallacy arises from assuming that what is true of all types of accidents is true of certain specific types (e.g., being struck by lightning). Although it is true that accidents of all sorts are frequent, this special sort is not.
56. Composition: A moderate amount of patriotism is fine, but an immoderate amount can turn a patriot into a zealot or fanatic. (One teaspoonful of sugar in a cup of tea is fine; does that mean five teaspoonfuls would be that much better?)
57. Hypostatization: Only persons can do the things attributed here to life as such.
58. Equivocation: The flowers "come to life' again in spring because the stems and roots survive and continue to live and grow in the soil; but a human being's body disintegrates and decays in the soil (and doesn't simply remain "dormant') and so we are not wrong in believing in the rebirth or "survival" of the (flowers, bears) and not the other (human beings). The example could be analysed along the lines of hypostatization and division as well.
59. Hypostatization: People possess the ability to carry out these actions, not the System, which is an abstraction.
60. Accent: Said in a sarcastic tone of voice, the remark implies the company had blundered again; said in a serious tone, it implies it had triumphed once again.
61. Composition: What is true of a small community may not be true of a very large one (a state). Greater power may corrupt and lead such a larger community to excesses.
62. Composition: What is true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole: human beings (who inhabit this planet) are capable of thinking, all right; but the universe (of which we are "part') does not necessarily share that attribute.
63. Division: What is true of the group as a whole may not be true of any one particular member. Your animal may not share in the characteristics found among those examined at Air Force bases (or, at least, at these particular two).
 |
 |
 |
 |