University of Kansas, Fall 2006
Philosophy 148: Reason and Argument
Ben Eggleston—eggleston@ku.edu

answers to homework questions

Chapter 1: Critical Thinking Basics

• before lecture on Wednesday, August 23
  • 1-1
    • An argument is a set of claims including a conclusion and one or more premises that are supposed to provide reasons for believing the conclusion to be true. (For more on this, see my August 21 slide “arguments.”)
    • 2. true
    • 4. false
    • 6. yes
    • 7. yes, though not every argument’s conclusion is explicitly stated
  • 1-3
    • 1. argument
    • 2. not an argument
    • 3. not an argument
    • 4. not an argument
  • 1-5
    • 1. a
    • 2. a
    • 3. d
    • 4. c
    • 5. c
    • 6.  c
    • 7.  b
  • 1-4
    • 1. no argument
    • 2
      • argument
      • conclusion: We’ll have to find someone else who owns a truck.
    • 3
      • argument
      • conclusion: Bans on firearms are clearly counterproductive.
    • 4
      • argument
      • conclusion: Computers will never be able to converse intelligently through speech.
    • 5
      • argument
      • conclusion: It seems likely that several million Americans may have been predisposed to accept the report on NBC’s Unsolved Mysteries that the U.S. military recovered a UFO with alien markings.
    • 6. no argument
    • 7
      • argument
      • conclusion: Fears that chemicals in teething rings and soft plastic toys may cause cancer may be justified.
  • 1-7
    • 1. There are actually two issues the first speaker addresses, and the second speaker addresses both of them too:
      • whether next weekend is when they go on Standard Tim again
      • whether they will have to set the clocks ahead or back
    • 2. The first speaker addresses whether ghosts exist. The second does not address that issue; he addresses whether the argument given by the first speaker is a good one. (You can dispute the quality of someone’s argument without disputing their main point, and that is what the second speaker is doing.)
    • 3. The first speaker starts by addressing the issue of how much work the second speaker does, and the second speaker addresses this, too. Then the first speaker addresses some different issues, namely, how much work she does and whether the second speaker would like to hear about it.
    • 4. The first speaker addresses whether it’s good for people to complain about American intervention in places like Iraq, and the second speaker addresses this issue, too.
    • 5. The first speaker addresses whether summer is a good season, and the second one does, too.
• before discussion section August 23–28
  • 1-3
    • 7. not an argument. (You might say that the two speakers are having an argument, but neither offers an argument in the sense that interests us, because no reasons are given on either side.)
    • 8. argument
    • 9. argument
  • 1-10
    • 1. not subjective
    • 2. subjective
    • 3. not subjective
    • 4. not subjective
    • 5. subjective
    • 6. subjective
    • 7. not subjective
    • 8. not subjective
    • 9. not subjective
    • 10. subjective
• before lecture on Monday, August 28
  • 1-1
    • 23. true
    • 24. true
  • 1-5
    • 11. a
    • 12. c
    • 13. b
    • 14. c
    • 15. b
    • 16. b
    • 17. e
  • 1-4
    • 11
      • argument
      • conclusion: It seems likely that the only way the stock market can do is down.
    • 12. no argument
    • 13. no argument
    • 14
      • argument
      • conclusion: It seems reasonable to expect to find more women than men who are upset by pornography.
    • 15. no argument
    • 16. no argument
    • 17. no argument
  • 1-7
    • 9. The first speaker just asks a question rather than addressing an issue, but the second speaker addresses the issue of whether it’s an outrage that U.S. postage stamps are now being printed in Canada, and the first speaker subsequently addresses this same issue.
    • 10. The first speaker addresses the issue of whether the second speaker has the right to make so much noise at night, and the second speaker addresses a different issue, namely, whether the first speaker has the right to let his or her dog run around loose all day long.
    • 11. The first speaker addresses the issue of whether to take a pizza break, and the second speaker addresses the different issue of what kind of pizza to get.
    • 12. The first speaker addresses the issue of whether it takes forever to find usable information on the Internet, and the second speaker addresses the different issue of whether it takes even longer to drive over to the library and find a place to park.

Chapter 2: Clear Thinking, Critical Thinking, and Clear Writing

• before lecture on Wednesday, August 30
  • 2-1 (each question’s answers ranked from most vague to most precise)
    • 1. d, e, b, c, f, a
    • 2. c, e, a, b, d
    • 3. c, b, a, d
    • 4. c, d, e, a, b
    • 5. a/b, e, c, d
  • 2-4
    • ‘should be’—not too vague
    • ‘between eight and twelve pages in length’—not too vague, since double-spacing is specified
    • ‘make use of’—not too vague
    • ‘sources’—too vague (Does any web site count? How about a friend?)
    • ‘organization’—not too vague
    • ‘use of sources’—vague, unless it just repeats the requirement to use three (which was vague already)
    • ‘clarity of expression’—not too vague
    • ‘quality of reasoning’—not too vague
    • ‘grammar’—not too vague
    • ‘rough draft’—not too vague
    • ‘before Thanksgiving’—too vague
    • ‘at the end of the semester’—too vague
  • 2-6
    • 1. 20 percent more real dairy butter than what? (if it’s than other muffins, which ones?)
    • 2. Does this mean that the mean of concert musicians’ earnings is lower than the mean of plumbers’ earnings, or that the median-earning concert musician makes less than the median-earning plumber?
    • 3. This claim is clear enough, but would be very hard to prove, given changes in training, equipment, facilities, rules, etc.
    • 4. This claim is fine, as long as there’s no confusion about which desert is being referred to (since some deserts are more arid than others).
    • 5. The comparison aspect is this claim is fine; it just has some vague expressions (e.g., ‘mood of the country’, ‘more conservative’).
  • 2-10
    • 1. “The Raider tackle blocked the Giants linebacker.”
    • 2. “Please close the door when you leave.”
    • 3. “We heard that he informed you in his letter of what he said.”
    • 4. “How Therapy Can Assist Victims of Torture,” or “How Therapy Can Help Victims of Torture”
    • 5. “Charles took his gun out of his holster.”
    • 6. “A week ago, they were both exposed to someone who was ill.”
    • 7. “Susan’s nose is like Hillary Clinton’s.”
• before discussion section August 30–September 1
  • 2-7
    • 1. The notion of one actor being better than another is very vague. And any way of making it precise would undoubtedly raise a very subjective issue.
    • 2. What constitutes blondes having more fun is pretty vague.
    • 3. Smartness, especially when applied to nonhuman animals, is a pretty vague concept. The difference between the average chimp and the average average monkey would have to be pretty stark in order for this comparison to be very clear and warranted.
    • 4. This comparison is fairly clear. In the back of the book, the authors talk about how it doesn’t tell you about the range of grades given by each professor, but you wouldn’t necessarily expect that from this sort of comparison anyway.
    • 5. Crime is a pretty vague concept, and refers to a whole range of things of different levels of seriousness. So it’s not very meaningful to just say that crime, in general, is up 160 percent over last year.
    • 6. This comparison is very unclear, not only in how you identify an “average” classical or rock musician, but also in how you measure talent.
    • 7. The authors say that ‘long distance’ is a vague expression, and that it’s unclear what ‘more endurance’ means, but I find this comparison reasonably clear.
    • 8. This comparison is fairly clear, though a lot depends on what counts a profanity and how it is quantified.
  • 2-10
    • 15. “Volunteer help requested: Wear construction helmet and work overalls, and be prepared to lift heavy equipment.”
    • 16. “We give good things to life.”
    • 17. intentionally ambiguous
    • 18. This is ambiguous between the following claims. It’s not clear which is meant.
      • “It gets your wash as clean as it can be, and doesn’t pollute our waters.”
      • “It gets your wash as clean as it can be, consistent with not polluting our waters.” (This claim is different from the first by allowing that if polluting our waters were an option, then it could get your wash even cleaner.)
    • 19. “Dunkelbrau is the best-testing real German beer.”
    • 20. I don’t see how this is ambiguous, unless someone might try to read it as “Independent laboratory tests prove that Houndstooth cleanser gets your bathroom cleaner than it gets any other product.” But that is such a stretch as not to be worth considering.
    • 21. “We’re going to look at plots of land this afternoon.”
    • 22. This is ambiguous between the following two claims, ad it’s not clear which one is meant.
      • “Jordan could write more essays that are profound.”
      • “Jordan could write essays that are more profound.”
    • 23. This one is intentionally ambiguous; obviously the only plausible interpretation is the collective one, not the individual one.
    • 24. The last part of the sentence should be rewritten as something like “with semen samples, frozen in a stainless steel tank, from 18 men.”
• before lecture on Wednesday, September 6
  • 2-8
    • 1. This comparison does not say anything to establish that a 25:1 prince-to-earnings ratio is a cause for concern.
    • 2. This comparison is pretty clear, assuming we know how long the speaker has been teaching at the university in question.
    • 3. ‘more religious’ is a very vague expression.
    • 4. regularly’ is very vague; something cab happen regularly and be either quite frequent or quite infrequent.
    • 5. How high in fiber a diet has to be, in order to be a high-fiber diet, needs to be specified.
    • 6. ‘more knowledgeable’ is a very vague expression.
    • 7. ‘more insights’ is a rather vague expression.
    • 8. What makes one sport “more demanding” than another is open to a lot of different interpretations. So ‘more demanding’ is another vague expression.
  • 2-10
    • 29. “In one of Shakespeare’s famous plays, Hamlet gives a long soliloquy.”
    • 30. “Before the officers’ arrival, the two suspects fled the area in a white Ford Mustang being driven by a third male.”
    • 31. intentionally ambiguous between the following two claims
      • “AT&T, for as long as your business lasts.”
      • “AT&T, for the liveliness (as in success, or thriving) or your business.”
    • 32. “This class might have had a member of the opposite sex as its teacher.”
    • 33. “Woman married 10 times previously gets 9 years for killing husband.”
    • 34. “. . . Many primary plans require you to pay 20% of that amount.”
    • 35. “I am a huge fan of Mustangs” (as opposed to “I am a fan of huge Mustangs”)
    • 36. “Comments from visitors are welcome at the office between the hours of 9 and 11 a.m. daily.”
    • 37. “. . . we will execute customers’ orders in strict rotation.”
    • 38. “. . . leave it with the guard on duty.”
  • 2-11
    • 4. as a group (only collectively do they enroll in that many courses)
    • 5. as individuals (every cowboy dies with his boots on)
    • 6. as a group (all three of them add up to 180 degrees)
  • 2-12
    • 4. ‘red planet’ is being defined by synonym (Mars).
    • 5. ’UV’ is being defined by synonym.
    • 6. ‘plains Indians’ is being defined by example.
  • 2-13
    • correct order: 7, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 3, 8
• before discussion section September 6–11
  • 2-11
    • 10. as individuals
    • 11. as individuals
    • 12. not clear—could be as individuals (comparison of per capita consumption) or as a group (comparison of city-wide consumption)
  • 2-12
    • 10. ‘red’ is being defined analytically.
    • 11. ‘significant other’ is being defined by example.
    • 12. ‘assessment’ is being defined by synonym.
  • 2-14
    • correct order: 7, 6, 4, 1, 3, 2, 5

Chapter 3: Credibility

• before lecture on Wednesday, September 13
  • 3-7
    • 1. d
    • 2. No, Howie’s reasoning is not sound. He may be right that he has no reason to think the three people would lie to him, but this does not mean that Elvis’s still being alive is the best explanation for their reports. The more likely explanation is that they’re mistaken, either because of having been tricked by look-alikes or by accident.
    • 3. He should realize that when someone asks for that sort of information over the phone, they’re probably trying to con you, not help you with your account.
    • 4. a
    • 5. b
• before discussion section September 13–18
  • 3-12
    • 1. accept (reputable magazine, reporting a straightforward annoucement)
    • 2. reject, or at least suspend judgment due to lack of documentation
    • 3. accept (reputable source)
    • 4. suspend judgment due to ongoing controversy and lack of decisive evidence
    • 5. accept (reputable source, citing evidence that can be verified)
• in discussion section September 13–18 (posted here because of KU’s cancellation of September 15 classes in Wescoe Hall)
  • 3-12
    • 6. probably reject, or at least suspend judgment (source is an interested party)
    • 7. reject (the parents’ claim, not necessarily the news report that says they said it)
    • 8. accept (no reason to doubt it, and the Los Angeles Times is a highly reputable newspaper)
    • 9. accept (no reason to doubt it, and Reuters is a well-established news company)
    • 10. accept (National Geographic is a good source)
  • 3-9
    • 1. d
    • 2. a or c (b and d are interested parties)
    • 3. c, with b being a close second because Supreme Court justices often know a lot about Constitutional history, too
    • 4. d or e
    • 5. b
• before lecture on Monday, September 18
  • 3-12
    • 11. accept (the claim about the manufacturer, not the claim of the manufacturer)
    • 12. suspend judgment, due to bias of source
    • 13. reject (due to conflict with background knowledge)
    • 14. accept (reputable source)
    • 15. accept (reputable source)
  • 3-10
    • 1. Alan Jensen paragraph
      • a. no special credibility (not said to be an expert in that area of medicine)
      • b. no special credibility (knowledgeable, but likely to be biased)
      • c. no special credibility (no indication that he would be an expert)
      • d. a lot of credibility (a demographic question)
      • e. no special credibility (no indication that he would be an expert)
      • f. a lot of credibility (a demographic question)
      • g. no special credibility (no indication that he would be an expert)
      • h. a lot of credibility (a demographic question)
      • i. a lot of credibility (lived both places)

Chapter 4: Persuasion Through Rhetoric: Common Devices and Techniques

• before lecture on Monday, September 25
  • 4-1
    • 1. a
    • 2. a
    • 3. a
    • 4. b
    • 5. c
    • 6. d
    • 7. a
    • 8. d
    • 9. b
    • 10. d
    • 11. c
    • 12. c
    • 13. a
  • 4-2
    • 1. hyperbole
    • 2. dysphemism
    • 3. not a rhetorical device
    • 4. dysphemism
    • 5. not a rhetorical device
    • 6. dysphemism
• before lecture on Wednesday, September 27
  • 4-10
    • 1. The quotation marks downplay the quality of the school.
    • 2. ‘ethnic cleansing’ is a euphemism.
    • 3. three rhetorical comparisons
    • 4. persuasive definition of socialism
    • 5. ‘little run-in with the law’ is a euphemism.
    • 6. no rhetorical device present
    • 7. ‘resettled’ is a euphemism.
    • 8. ‘gaming’ is a euphemism for ‘gambling’.
    • 9. ‘politician’ is a dysphemism.
    • 10. rhetorical definition of capitalism
    • 11. ‘Clearly’ is a proof surrogate.
    • 12. I don’t know what is supposed to be going on with this one.
  • 4-5
    • 1. whether Tom DeLay is mean
    • 2. that he is
    • 3. The reason given is that he punishes pols for political reasons.
    • 4. ‘By and large’ is a weaseler, and so is ‘quite often’. ‘The Hammer’ is a dysphemism.
• before discussion section September 27–October 2
  • 4-12
    • 1. ‘Japan, Inc’ is a dysphemism.
    • 2. no rhetorical devices
    • 3. ‘Maybe‘ is a downplayer, and ‘not necessarily’ is a weaseler.
    • 4. ‘get access’ is a euphemism, and ‘constituents’ is, too, since it's being used to refer particularly to big contributors.
    • 5. This statement points out that Gore used the dysphemism ‘tax scheme’ to discuss Bush’s plan.
    • 6. no rhetorical devices
    • 7. The last sentence is hyperbole.
    • 8. ‘clarified’ is a euphemism.
    • 9. ‘so-called’ is a downplayer, ‘fat cat’ is a dysphemism, and ‘without ever getting around to’ is a dysphemism for ‘without having to’.
    • 10. ‘even’ is innuendo, since it implies that Congress does not get embarrassed at the sorts of things that most people get embarrassed at. Also, ‘they passed another law’ is a downplayer, since all Congress can do is pass laws and this makes it sound as if they should have done more.
    • 11. rhetorical comparison
    • 12. ‘Abundant evidence’ is a proof surrogate.
    • 13. ‘As you know’ is a proof surrogate, and the rest is a rhetorical analogy.
    • 14. ‘mere’ is a downplayer.
    • 15. The last sentence is a proof surrogate unless what comes next is a description of the two arguments.
    • 16. ‘bald’ and ‘naked’ are dysphemisms, and the rest is a rhetorical definition.
  • 4-7
    • 1. whether politicians are injecting religion into public affairs
    • 2. that they are
    • 3. No argument is given.
    • 4. ‘hysteria’, ‘quackery’, and ‘zealots’ are dysphemisms, the quotation marks around ‘pro-life’ downplays that position, and ‘blind, intolerant manner’ is hyperbole.

Chapter 5: More Rhetorical Devices: Psychological and Related Fallacies

• before lecture on Monday, October 2
  • 5-2
    • 1. “argument” from popularity
    • 2. two wrongs make a right
    • 3. wishful thinking
    • 4. “argument” from pity
    • 5. scare tactics
    • 6. no fallacy
    • 7. red herring
    • 8. red herring
    • 9. “argument” from pity
    • 10. “argument” from outrage
    • 11. “argument” from loyalty
    • 12. relativist fallacy (even though the back of the book says subjectivism)
• before lecture on Wednesday, October 4
  • 5-5
    • 4. apple polishing
    • 5. The second speaker is a relativist (but is not committing the relativist fallacy).
    • 6. Fred is rationalizing, then appealing to common practice.
    • 7. no fallacy
    • 8. scare tactics
    • 9. “argument” from popularity
    • 10. red herring
  • 5-6
    • 1. no fallacy
    • 2. scare tactics
    • 3. subjectivism
    • 4. “argument” from peer pressure
    • 5. “argument” from common practice
• before discussion section October 4–9
  • 5-7
    • 1. scare tactics
    • 2. red herring (by appealing to greed)
    • 3. relativist fallacy
    • 4. scare tactics
    • 5. apple polishing
    • 6. “argument” from pity
    • 7. two wrongs make a right
    • 8. smokescreen
    • 9. “argument” from popularity
    • 10. red herrings
    • 11. no fallacy
    • 12. red herring (to say the president must do something is a side issue compared to whether this is the thing to do)

Chapter 6: More Fallacies

• before lecture on Monday, October 9
  • 6-2
    • 1. begging the question
    • 2. perfectionist fallacy
    • 3. false dilemma
    • 4. straw man
    • 5. perfectionist fallacy
    • 6. inconsistency ad hominem
    • 7. straw man
    • 8. circumstantial ad hominem
    • 9. begging the question
    • 10. line-drawing fallacy
• before lecture on Wednesday, October 11
  • 6-3
    • 8. circumstantial ad hominem
    • 9. poisoning the well
    • 10. no, since they were seeing whether he was outraged about something, and he was
    • 11. personal attack ad hominem
    • 12. circumstantial ad hominem
  • 6-4
    • 1. circumstantial ad hominem
    • 2. begging the question
    • 3. slippery slope
    • 4. two reasonable interpretations
      • straw man
      • false dilemma
    • 5. slippery slope
    • 6. slippery slope
    • 7. begging the question
    • 8. inconsistency ad hominem
    • 9. straw man
    • 10. false dilemma

Chapter 7: The Anatomy and Variety of Arguments

• before lecture on Wednesday, October 18
  • 7-1
    • 1
      • a. premise
      • b. premise
      • c. conclusion
    • 2
      • a. premise
      • b. premise
      • c. conclusion
    • 3
      • a. conclusion
      • b. premise
    • 4
      • a. premise
      • b. premise
      • c. conclusion
    • 5
      • a. premise
      • b. conclusion
      • c. premise
      • d. premise
  • 7-7
    • 1. false
    • 2. false
    • 3. valid, true
    • 4. false
    • 5. true
    • 6. false
    • 7. true
    • 8. false
    • 9. false
    • 10. true
    • 11. false
    • 12. true
• before discussion section October 18–23
  • 7-10
    • 6. If the lights are bright, we can safely conclude that the battery is in good condition.
    • 7. All dogs that scratch a lot have fleas or dry skin.
    • 8. Any good senator would make an excellent president.
    • 9. Anyone who doesn’t own a gun is sure to be for gun control.
    • 10. Any poet whose work appears in many Sierra Club publications is one of America’s most outstanding poets.
  • 7-11
    • 6. If the lights are bright, we can probably safely conclude that the battery is in good condition.
    • 7. Most dogs that scratch a lot have fleas or dry skin.
    • 8. A good senator would probably make an excellent president.
    • 9. Anyone who doesn’t own a gun is likely to be for gun control.
    • 10. A poet whose work appears in many Sierra Club publications is probably one of America’s most outstanding poets.
• before lecture on October 23
  • 7-14
    • 1. 2 and 3 on a line, with an arrow from that to 1.
    • 2. 1 with an arrow to 3, and 2 with an arrow to 3.
    • 3. 1 with an arrow to 2, with an arrow to 5; also 3 with an arrow to 4, with an arrow to 5.
    • 4. 1 with an arrow to 2 and with an arrow to 3; then arrows from 2 and 3 to 4, with an arrow to 5, with an arrow to 6.
    • 5. 1, 2, and 3 on a line, with an arrow from that to 4. Also, an arrow from 1 to 5, and an arrow from 2 to 6. Finally, arrows from 4, 5, and 6 to 7.
  • 7-16
    • 1. as follows:
      • claims:
        • 1. Your distributor is the problem.
        • 2. There’s no current at the spark plugs.
        • 3. If there’s no current at the spark plugs, then either your alternator is shot or your distributor is defective.
        • 4. [unstated] Either your alternator is shot or your distributor is defective.
        • 5. If the problem were in the alternator, the your dash warning light would be on.
        • 6. The light isn’t on.
      • diagram:
        • 2 and 3 on a line, with an arrow from that to 4.
        • 4, 5, and 6 on a line, with an arrow to 1.
    • 2. as follows:
      • claims:
        • 1. The federal deficit must be reduced.
        • 2. It (the deficit) has contributed to inflation.
        • 3. It (the deficit) has hurt American exports.
      • diagram:
        • 2 with an arrow to 1.
        • 3 with an arrow to 1.
    • 3. as follows:
      • claims:
        • 1. Professional boxing should be outlawed.
        • 2. Boxing almost always leads to brain damage.
        • 3. Anything that leads to brain damage should be outlawed.
        • 4. Boxing supports organized crime.
        • 5. [unstated] Anything that supports organized crime should be outlawed.
      • diagram:
        •  2 and 3 on a line, with an arrow from that to 1.
        •  4 and 5 on a line, with an arrow from that to 1.
    • 4. as follows:
      • claims:
        • 1. They really ought to build a new airport.
        • 2. It (a new airport) would attract more business to the area.
        • 3. The old airport is overcrowded and dangerous.
      • diagram:
        • 2 with an arrow to 1.
        • 3 with an arrow to 1.
    • 5. as follows:
      • claims:
        • 1. One shouldn’t vote for Jackson.
        • 2. Jackson is too radical.
        • 3. Jackson is too inexperienced.
        • 4. Jackson’s lack of experience would have made him a dangerous council member.
        • 5. [unstated] One shouldn’t vote for anyone who is too radical.
        • 6. [unstated] One shouldn’t vote for anyone who is too inexperienced.
        • 7. [unstated] One shouldn’t vote for anyone who would have been a dangerous council member.
      • diagram:
        • 2 and 5 on a line, with an arrow from that to 1.
        • 3 and 6 on a line, with an arrow from that to 1.
        • 4 and 7 on a line, with an arrow from that to 1.

Chapter 8: Deductive Arguments I: Categorical Logic

• before lecture on Wednesday, October 25
  • 8-1
    • 1. All salamanders are lizards.
    • 2. Some lizards are not salamanders.
    • 3. All lizards are reptiles.
    • 4. All members of the suborder Ophidia are snakes.
    • 5. All members of the suborder Ophidia are snakes.
    • 6. No burrowing snakes are poisonous snakes.
    • 7. All alligators are reptiles.
    • 8. All things that qualify as frogs are things that qualify as amphibians.
    • 9. All places there are snakes are places there are frogs.
    • 10. All places there are snakes are places there are frogs.
    • 11. All times the frog population decreases are times the snake population decreases.
    • 12. All the people who arrived are cheerleaders.
    • 13. All the people who got raises are vice presidents.
    • 14. All the people who got seats are people who arrived early.
    • 15. Some home movies are things that are as boring as dirt.
• before discussion section October 25–30
  • 8-11
    • 1
      • Venn diagram
        • books that are sewn in signatures on the left
        • paperbacks on the right
        • books that use glue in their spines in the lower center
      • marking it
        • The first premise requires shading in areas 2 and 3.
        • The second premise requires shading in areas 4 and 5.
      • The conclusion requires shading in areas 2 and 5. Since this is already accomplished by the marking for the premises, the argument is valid.
    • 2
      • Venn diagram
        • sound arguments on the left
        • interesting arguments on the right
        • valid arguments in the lower center
      • marking it
        • The first premise requires shading in areas 1 and 2.
        • The second premise requires an X on the border between areas 4 and 7.
      • The conclusion requires an X in area 4. Since this is not already accomplished by the marking for the premises, the argument is invalid.
    • 3
      • Venn diagram
        • mathematicians on the left
        • statisticians on the right
        • topologists in the lower center
      • marking it
        • The first premise requires shading in areas 6 and 7.
        • The second premise requires an X in area 4.
      • The conclusion requires an X in area 1 or 4. Since this is already accomplished by the marking for the premises, the argument is valid.
    • 4
      • Venn diagram
        • times that are today on the left
        • times that Louis is tired on the right
        • times that Louis is edgy in the lower center
      • marking it
        • The first premise requires shading in areas 2 and 3.
        • The second premise requires shading in areas 1 and 2.
      • The conclusion requires shading in areas 1 and 4. Since this is not already accomplished by the marking for the premises, the argument is invalid.
    • 5
      • Venn diagram
        • voters on the left
        • residents on the right
        • citizens in the lower center
      • marking it
        • The first premise requires shading in areas 1 and 2.
        • The second premise requires an X on the border between areas 4 and 7.
      • The conclusion requires an X in area 4. Since this is not already accomplished by the marking for the premises, the argument is invalid.
    • 6
      • Venn diagram
        • chords that use the major scale on the left
        • dominant seventh chords on the right
        • chords that are in the mixolydian mode in the center
      • marking it
        • The first premise requires shading in areas 2 and 3.
        • The second premise requires shading in areas 4 and 5.
      • The conclusion requires shading in areas 2 and 5. Since this is already accomplished by the marking for the premises, the argument is valid.
• before lecture on Monday, October 30
  • 8-12, 1–6: Instead of explaining these in words (as with 8-11, nos. 1–6), I’ve scanned and posted my answers here: http://web.ku.edu/~utile/courses/reason1/8-12_1-6.pdf.

Chapter 9: Deductive Arguments II: Truth-Functional Logic

• before lecture on Wednesday, November 1
  • 9-1
    • 1. Q → P
    • 2. Q → P
    • 3. P → Q
    • 4. Q → P
    • 5. (Q → P) & (P → Q)
  • 9-2
    • 1. (P → Q) & R
    • 2. P → (Q & R)
    • 3. (P & Q) → R
    • 4. P & (Q → R)
    • 5. P → (Q → R)
    • 6. (P → Q) & (R → Q)
    • 7. (P v R) → Q
    • 8. P v (Q → R)
    • 9. (P v Q) → R
    • 10. P → (Q v R)
    • 11. ~C → S
    • 12. ~(C → S)
    • 13. S → ~R
    • 14. ~S v ~C
    • 15. F v C
• before discussion section November 1–6
  • 9-4, 1–6: See http://web.ku.edu/~utile/courses/reason1/9-4_1-6.pdf.
• before lecture on Monday, November 6
  • 9-6
    • 1. chain argument
    • 2. disjunctive argument
    • 3. constructive dilemma
  • 9-7
    • 1
      • 1. R → P (premise)
      • 2. Q → R (premise) / therefore Q → P
      • 3. Q → P (1, 2, chain argument)
    • 2
      • 1. P → S (premise)
      • 2. P v Q (premise)
      • 3. Q → R (premise) / therefore S v R
      • 4. S v R (1, 2, 3, constructive dilemma)
    • 3
      • 1. R & S (premise)
      • 2. S → P (premise) / therefore P
      • 3. S (1, simplification)
      • 4. P (2, 3, modus ponens)
    • 4
      • 1. P → Q (premise)
      • 2. ~P → S (premise)
      • 3. ~Q (premise) / therefore S
      • 4. ~P (1, 3, modus tollens)
      • 5. S (2, 4, modus ponens)
    • 5
      • 1. (P v Q) → R (premise)
      • 2. Q (premise) / therefore R
      • 3. P v Q (2, addition)
      • 4. R (1, 3, modus ponens)
    • 6
      • 1. ~P (premise)
      • 2. ~(R & S) v Q (premise)
      • 3. ~P → ~Q (premise) / therefore ~(R & S)
      • 4. ~Q (1, 3, modus ponens)
      • 5. ~(R & S) (2, 4, disjunctive argument)

Chapter 10: Inductive Arguments

• before lecture on Wednesday, November 15
  • 10-1
    • 1. a
      • terms: these shrubs and privet
      • target: these shrubs
    • 2. b
    • 3. a
      • terms: last version of Word and this version
      • target: this version
    • 4. b
    • 5. a
      • terms: math and symbolic logic
      • target: symbolic logic
    • 6. a
      • terms: boyfriend’s five previous marriages and his next marriage
      • target: his next marriage
    • 7. a
      • terms: sun’s effects on face and sun’s effects on hands
      • target: sun’s effects on hands
  • 10-3
    • 1. a
    • 2. b
    • 3. b
    • 4. a
    • 5. b
    • 6. b
    • 7. a
  • 10-4
    • 1
      • terms: last nine El Niños and the next one
      • target: the next one
      • property in question: below-average rainfall across the northern United States and southern Canada
    • 2
      • sample: Disney movies seen
      • target class: all Disney movies
      • property in question: violent
    • 3
      • sample: my professors
      • target class: professors everywhere
      • property in question: wearing glasses
    • 4
      • terms: when Christmas decorations have gone up in the past and when they will next year
      • target: when Christmas decorations will go up next year
      • property in question: going up a little earlier than the year before
    • 5
      • sample: conservatives I’ve met
      • target class: most conservatives
      • property in question: disliking Olympia Snowe
    • 6
      • sample: grade on first test
      • target class: grades on all tests
      • property in question: how high or low
    • 7
      • terms: grand pianos sold by the music department in the past and two being sold now
      • target: two being sold now
      • property in question: overpriced
• before discussion section November 15–20
  • 10-8
    • 1. a, e, c, b, f, d
    • 2. c, d, b, a, e
  • 10-10
    • 1. yes
    • 2. stronger
    • 3. stronger
    • 4. weaker
    • 5. neither
    • 6. stronger
    • 7. weaker
• before lecture on Monday, November 20
  • 10-16
    • 1. biased generalizing
    • 2. hasty generalizing
    • 3. hasty generalizing
    • 4. hasty generalizing
    • 5. biased generalizing
    • 6. hasty generalizing
    • 7. hasty generalizing
  • 10-18
    • 1. If you are using flipping a coin, rolling a die, or using some other device that results in random outcomes (heads sometimes and tails sometimes, or a number between 1 and 6, or whatever), then if you just do it a few times, it would not be surprising if the results don’t match what you expect (e.g., a roughly equal mixture of heads and tails, or a roughly equal mixture of 1’s, 2’s, 3’s, 4’s, 5’s, and 6’s). But if you do it many times, then the results should match what you expect. The more times you do it, the closer you can expect the results to match the ratios that you would have predicted at the start.
    • 2. This might be a reasonable application of the law of large numbers, and it might not be. It all depends on whether it is true, biologically, that reproduction in humans is exactly as likely to result in a male baby being born as a female baby being born. If

Chapter 11: Causal Arguments

• before lecture on Monday, November 27
  • 11-3
    • 1. a
    • 2. b
    • 3. a
    • 4. b
    • 5. a
    • 6. b
    • 7. a
    • 8. b
    • 9. b
    • 10. b
    • 11. a
    • 12. a
    • 13. a
    • 14. a
    • 15. a
• before lecture on Wednesday, November 29
  • 11-4
    • 1. C
    • 2. B
    • 3. A
    • 4. C
    • 5. B
    • 6. A
    • 7. C
    • 8. A
    • 9. B
    • 10. A
    • 11. B
    • 12. C
    • 13. B
    • 14. C
    • 15. B
• before discussion section November 29–December 4
  • 11-11
    • 1. A, A, A
    • 2. F, A, A
    • 3. F, A, A
    • 4. A, A, A
    • 5. A, F, A
    • 6. F, F, F
    • 7. F, A, F
    • 8. F, A, A
    • 9. A, A, F
    • 10. A, A, A

Chapter 12: Moral, Legal, and Aesthetic Reasoning

• before lecture on Monday, December 4
  • 12-1
    • 1. yes
    • 2. no
    • 3. yes
    • 4. yes
    • 5. no
  • 12-3
    • 1. no
    • 2. no
    • 3. yes
    • 4. yes
    • 5. no
  • 12-4
    • 1. When someone borrows something and damages it, he or she ought to pay for it to be repaired.
    • 2. People ought to keep their promises.
    • 3. When someone does you a big favor, you ought to help him or her out in return.
    • 4. People ought to do what they sign contracts to do.
    • 5. A mayor who takes bribes should resign.
  • 12-5
    • 1. Tory is being consistent in that he is proposing that everyone should have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex.
    • 2. Shelley is being consistent as long as she can identify reasons in favor of special admissions programs for art and music students, athletes, or children of alumni that are not also reasons in favor of special admissions programs for women and minority students.
    • 3. No, Marin is not being consistent. (It might be possible for him to make his opposition to abortion consistent with his support of capital punishment by changing his moral principle from “Thou shalt not kill” to “Thou shalt not kill except when necessary for appropriate criminal punishment” or something like that.
    • 4. Yes, Koko is being consistent since 17-year-olds are not adults.
    • 5. No, Jack is not being consistent.
• before lecture on Wednesday, December 6
  • 12-9
    • 1. the harm principle: Shoplifting harms those from whom one steals.
    • 2. the harm principle: Forgery tends to harm other people.
    • 3. a couple of possibilities:
      • legal paternalism: Suicide often harms the person who does it.
      • legal moralism: Many people think it is immoral to commit suicide.
    • 4. the offense principle: Many people find spitting on the sidewalk offensive.
    • 5. the harm principle: Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol increases the risk of harm to other people.
  • 12-12
    • 1. a: principle 4; b: principle 2; compatible
    • 2. a: principle 3; b: principle 7; incompatible
    • 3. a: principle 1; b: principle 5; compatible
  • 12-13
    • 1. relevant—principle 7
    • 2. relevant—principle 1
    • 3. relevant—principle 5