|
Test One I. Diagram these arguments or explanations. Use the conventions from class and the text. Number the premises and identify the conclusion. (50 points) |
|
|
1. President Bush has criticized the U.N. for failing to fulfill its obligations concerning its resolutions on Iraq. Meanwhile, the U.S. has failed to fulfill its own obligations because with President Bush’s approval it has not paid its U.N. dues. It appears, then, that Bush is comfortable with this double-standard, so is it any surprise that other nations of the world do not trust him?
|
|
|
|
2. We have to admit that Bush’s belligerent threats have been effective, since Saddam Hussein has (partially) agreed to the return of U.N. inspectors, And because the threats were so effective, they were justified. Thus, even if war is never a legitimate tool for international diplomacy, the threat of war most certainly is.
|
|
3. The Asian Café has more tables than Pad Thai, so the chances are better that we could get seated there. And it does have a better atmosphere. Still, the food at Pad Thai is always excellent and that’s really all that matters when I’m this hungry, so Pad Thai gets my vote as to where we to go for lunch today.
|
|
|
|
4 . Ex-President Clinton is more popular than ever. The huge speaker’s fees he gets prove that. However, his political reputation has become pretty tarnished. First, the messy business of the last-minute pardons made him look like any other crooked politician. Then, the 90’s economic boom suddenly ended implying that his economic policies never were the cause of our prosperity. And worst of all, his reputation as a political whiz kid can be questioned given that all the prominent members of his administration who ran for their own political offices lost: Janet Reno lost in Florida, Robert Reich lost in Massachusetts, and Andrew Cuomo lost in NY.
|
|
5. The results are in: the Green Party candidate for Governor got only 3% of the vote. That means, of course, she won’t be our next Governor, so we’re stuck with another indistinguishable "Dem-ican" or "Republ-ocrat." More important, it also means the Greens didn’t get to the 5% threshold, so they won’t automatically get on the ballot next time. Without that automatic slot, they have to focus their energy on just getting listed, so they won’t be able to concentrate as much on the issues. Thus, once again, the fat-cat establishment will get an easy ride.
|
|
|
II. Identify the conclusion of each passage (e.g., by underlining it or writing it in the space provided). Indicate the single most obvious fallacy or flaw — if any. (50 points) 1. The examples that Hurley uses in his logic text are all pretty bad. He defines a "fallacy" as "a defect in an argument arising from some source other than merely false premises" (p. 111). He then asked us to find the fallacy in this example: "Why is it so difficult for you to reach a decision?" (p. 163). But that example is not an argument at all, so obviously it cannot have "a defect in argument"! Conclusion: Fallacy: 2. The Democrats try to paint the Republicans as the party of the wealthy — more concerned with the interests of rich corporations than the working class. That’s a politically distorted charge. In fact, studies show that middle class voters are almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, and most Republican voters are not personally wealthy at all. Conclusion: Fallacy: 3. Was that a mosquito you just swatted? If it was, then since mosquitoes are insects, and insects are animals, and animals are organisms, and organisms are living things, then you just killed a living thing — and if all life is sacred, then you just killed something sacred! So, if all life really is sacred, then unless it’s sometimes morally OK to kill sacred things, you just did something morally wrong. Conclusion: Fallacy: 4. Invading another country is the worst violation of its autonomy. Violations of national autonomy are forbidden by the U.N charter and by international law. Therefore, if the U.S. does invade Iraq, the U.S. will itself become one of those international outlaw countries that it has always decried. Conclusion: Fallacy: 5. It’s easy to call Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld warmongers for their aggressive stance on Iraq, but their opponents are ignoring how dangerous the alternative is. If we do nothing and let Hussein continue to amass an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, he could terrorize the whole world! Conclusion: Fallacy: 6. PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat claims that he has nothing to do with the suicide bombers terrorizing the Israeli civilian population. They are out of his control — or so he says — but he not backed up his claims with any proof that his organization is not involved. So even if he’s not directly to blame for the attacks, it is clear that he has at least an indirect responsibility for them. Conclusion: Fallacy: 7. Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been harshly criticized for ordering the destruction of Arafat’s headquarters in Ramallah, but he should take that international condemnation as proof that he is actually doing the right thing. When your loudest critics have included the likes of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Saudi Arabia’s Prince Faud, and Al-Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden — a brutal dictator, a corrupt functionary, and the world’s greatest terrorist — then you must be on the right track. Conclusion: Fallacy: 8. Professor Hedley in the Physics Department says that she doesn’t like to argue. Everyone who knows her agrees that she’s one of the most pleasant and agreeable people you could meet. I think they must be mistaken because I distinctly heard her say how proud she was of the argument she had come up with in support of Feynman and Ander’s interpretation of the Gell-Mann experiments. Conclusion: Fallacy: 9. Professor Smedley, I get A’s and B’s in all my other classes so you know I’m not a C student. I know that I have a C average on the tests in your class, but that just shows that your tests are unfair!. Conclusion: Fallacy: 10. Religion helps people to accept their circumstances — and so do drugs! Drugs, of course, may be addictive, with users coming to depend on them to function at all — which, for some people, is just like religion! Organized religion can serve a social function, bringing people together — but so can drugs! So it seems that Karl Marx was on to something when he called religion the opiate of the masses. And so, like dangerous drugs, religion should be regulated by law — if not outlawed altogether!. Conclusion: Fallacy:
Best Answers to Test’s Fallacies: 1. C = /\ Hurley’s examples are bad Fallacy: Hasty Gen small sample 2. C = /\ GOP not party of rich Fallacy: Composition 3. C = /\ Wrong to kill mosquitoes or… Fallacy: No Fallacy [Accident?] not: SSlope 4. C = /\ U.S. would be outlaw Fallacy: Accident/No Fallacy 5. C = /\ Attacking Iraq OK Fallacy: False Dichotomy 6. C = /\ Arafat to blame Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance [Suppressed Ev?] 7. C = /\ Sharon OK- Fallacy: Ad Hominem abusive [Compos?] 8. C = /\ She is argumentative Fallacy: Equivocation on "argument’ 9. C = /\ Tests unfair Fallacy: False Cause non causa [oversimp; People] 10. C = /\ Religions should be outlawed Fallacy: Weak analogy. BQ, ComplexQ, Weak Analogy |
|