Philosophy, Critical Thinking

Criteria for an Argument (premise → conclusion):

1. At least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or reasons. 2. There must be a claim that something follows from the alleged evidence or reasons.

Harold needs to have his rugs cleaned, and his friend Veronica reports that Ajax Carpet Service did an excellent job on her rugs. From this, Harold concludes that Ajax will do an equally good job on his rugs. How do the following facts bear on Harold's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Ajax Carpet Service's job on Veronica's rugs had attributes a, b, c, and was excellent. Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs probably will be excellent also. Veronica's carpets never had any stains on them before they were cleaned, but Harold's have several large stains.

This introduces another relevant disanalogy, thus making the argument weaker.

Use a Venn diagram to determine whether the following standard-form categorical syllogism is valid from the Boolean standpoint. Then, identify the mood and figure, and cross-check your answer with the table of unconditionally valid syllogisms found in §5.1: All circular triangles are plane figures. All circular triangles are three-sided figures. Therefore, some three-sided figures are plane figures.

This is a AAI-3 syllogism The argument is INVALID from the Boolean standpoint because the conclusion is not apparent in the diagram. There may be no members of the "three-sided figures" class in the "plane figures" class. The AAI-3 syllogism is not in the list of unconditionally valid forms.

Use a Venn diagram to determine whether the following standard-form categorical syllogism is valid from the Boolean standpoint. Then, identify the mood and figure, and cross-check your answer with the table of unconditionally valid syllogisms found in §5.1: Some snowflakes are not uniform solids. All snowflakes are six-pointed crystals. Therefore, some six-pointed crystals are not uniform solids.

This is a OAO-3 syllogism The argument is VALID because the conclusion is apparent in the diagram. After diagraming the premises, it shows that there is indeed a member of the "six-pointed crystals" class that's not in the "uniform solids" class. The OAO-3 syllogism is in the list of unconditionally valid forms.

Paul is searching for a puppy that will grow up to be friendly with his children. His friend Barbara has an Airedale terrier that is good with her children. From this, Paul concludes that an Airedale puppy would make a good choice. How do the following facts bear on Paul's arguments? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Barbara's Airedale terrier has attributes a, b, c, and is friendly with children. Paul's Airedale terrier will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Paul's Airedale terrier probably will be friendly with children also. The puppy that Paul plans to get had a littermate that was vicious and had to be destroyed. Barbara's dog had no such littermates.

This is a relevant disanalogy that weakens the argument.

Andrew is thinking about buying stock in E-Tron, a new company that sells electronic equipment over the Internet. Six months ago, he bought shares in E-Boot, a new company that sells shoes over the internet, and the price of the stock doubled in two months. Andrew argues that if he buys E-Tron, the stock will double in two months. How do the following facts bear on Andrew's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: E-Boot has attributes a, b, c, and has stock that doubled in two months. E-Tron will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, E-Tron probably will have stock that doubles in two months also. A survey was taken of E-Boot customers, and 90 percent said they would not consider buying electronic equipment over the Internet.

This is a relevant disanalogy that makes the argument weaker.

Andrew is thinking about buying stock in E-Tron, a new company that sells electronic equipment over the Internet. Six months ago, he bought shares in E-Boot, a new company that sells shoes over the internet, and the price of the stock doubled in two months. Andrew argues that if he buys E-Tron, the stock will double in two months. How do the following facts bear on Andrew's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: E-Boot has attributes a, b, c, and has stock that doubled in two months. E-Tron will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, E-Tron probably will have stock that doubles in two months also. Comcast, the most widely used Net service provider, just increased its monthly service charge by 50 percent.

This is a relevant disanalogy that makes the argument weaker.

In the following argument, identify the premise/s, conclusion, and any indicator words: Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.

Conclusion: "the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim" Premise: "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good [Conclusion] Indicator word: "for this reason"

Andrew is thinking about buying stock in E-Tron, a new company that sells electronic equipment over the Internet. Six months ago, he bought shares in E-Boot, a new company that sells shoes over the internet, and the price of the stock doubled in two months. Andrew argues that if he buys E-Tron, the stock will double in two months. How do the following facts bear on Andrew's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: E-Boot has attributes a, b, c, and has stock that doubled in two months. E-Tron will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, E-Tron probably will have stock that doubles in two months also. E-Boot introduced its products with a major ad campaign, whereas E-Tron plans no such campaign.

This is a relevant disanalogy that makes the argument weaker.

Andrew is thinking about buying stock in E-Tron, a new company that sells electronic equipment over the Internet. Six months ago, he bought shares in E-Boot, a new company that sells shoes over the internet, and the price of the stock doubled in two months. Andrew argues that if he buys E-Tron, the stock will double in two months. How do the following facts bear on Andrew's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: E-Boot has attributes a, b, c, and has stock that doubled in two months. E-Tron will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, E-Tron probably will have stock that doubles in two months also. Stocks in Internet companies have been in a steep decline for the past two weeks, whereas they were rising six months ago.

This is a relevant disanalogy that weakens the argument

Statement

A sentence that possesses truth value — that is either true or false

Use the five rules to determine whether the following standard-form syllogism is valid from the Boolean standpoint. If invalid, name the fallacy or fallacies committed. Check your answer by constructing a Venn diagram. All inside traders are people subject to prosecution. Some executives with privileged information are not people subject to prosecution. Therefore, some executives with privileged information are inside traders.

All IT are SP All EP are SP All EP are IT. Violates RULE 4 (the minor premise is negative and yet the conclusion is affirmative) The argument is INVALID from the Boolean standpoint because the conclusion is not apparent in the diagram. There may be no members of the "EP" class also in the "IT" class.

Construct an AAA-3 syllogistic form and use the five rules for syllogisms to determine if they are valid from the Boolean standpoint

All M are B All M are A All A are B. Violates RULE 2 (the minor term is distributed in the conclusion but not in either of the premises) → fallacy of "illicit minor"

Translate the following into a standard-form categorical proposition Comets are the only heavenly bodies with tails.

All heavenly bodies with tails are comets.

Translate the following into a standard-form categorical proposition Every jazz fan admires Duke Ellington.

All jazz fans are people who admire Duke Ellington.

Translate the following argument into standard-form categorical syllogisms, then use a Venn diagram or the rules for syllogisms to determine whether it is valid or invalid. Whoever wrote the Declaration of Independence had a big impact on civilization, and Thomas Jefferson certainly had that. Therefore, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence.

All people who wrote the Declaration of Independence are people who had a big impact on civilization. All people identical to Thomas Jefferson are people who had a big impact on civilization. All people identical to Thomas Jefferson are people who wrote the Declaration of Independence. This violates RULE 1 (the [underlined] Middle term is not distributed). Thus, it's an INVALID argument.

Translate the following argument into standard-form categorical syllogisms, then use a Venn diagram or the rules for syllogisms to determine whether it is valid or invalid. Whenever suicide rates decline, we can infer that people's lives are better adjusted. Accordingly, since suicide rates have been declining in recent years, we can infer that people's lives have been better adjusted in recent years.

All years in which suicide rates decline (D) are years that people's lives are better adjusted (B). All recent years (R) are years in which suicide rates decline (D). All recent years (R) are years that people's lives are better adjusted (B). The argument is VALID because the conclusion is apparent in the diagram. After diagraming the premises, it shows that any member of the "R" class could only be in the "B" class.

Conditional statement

Antecedent Consequent

In the following categorical proposition, identify the letter name, quantity, quality, and also whether the subject and/or predicate terms are distributed: All identity thieves are criminals who deserve jail time.

Letter name: A Quantity: Universal Quality: Affirmative Term/s Distributed: Subject Term ("identity thieves")

In the following categorical proposition, identify the letter name, quantity, quality, and also whether the subject and/or predicate terms are distributed: Some Chinese leaders are not thoroughgoing opponents of capitalist economics.

Letter name: O Quantity: Particular Quality: Negative Term/s Distributed: Predicate Term ("thoroughgoing opponents of capitalist economics")

Identify the major, minor, and middle terms, as well as the mood and figure of the following categorical syllogism. All neutron stars are things that produce intense gravity. All neutron stars are extremely dense objects Therefore, all extremely dense objects are things that produce intense gravity.

Major Term: "things that produce intense gravity" Minor Term: "extremely dense objects" Middle Term: "neutron stars" Mood-Figure: AAA-3

In the following categorical proposition, identify the quantifier, subject term, copula, and predicate term: All oil-based paints are products that contribute to photochemical smog.

Quantifier: "All" Subject Term: "oil-based paints" Copula: "are" Predicate Term: "products that contribute to photochemical smog"

In the following categorical proposition, identify the quantifier, subject term, copula, and predicate term: Some school uniforms are useful tools for social conditioning.

Quantifier: "Some" Subject Term: "school uniforms" Copula: "are" Predicate Term: "useful tools for social conditioning"

Construct an OEI-3 categorical syllogism.

Some M are not P. No M is S. Some S are P.

Translate the following into a standard-form categorical proposition Several contestants won prizes.

Some contestants are people who won prizes.

Translate the following argument into standard-form categorical syllogisms, then use a Venn diagram or the rules for syllogisms to determine whether it is valid or invalid. There are public schools that teach secular humanism. Therefore, since secular humanism is a religion, there are public schools that teach religion.

Some things public schools teach are things identical to secular humanism. All things identical to secular humanism are religions. Some things public schools teach are religions. This does not violate any rules. Thus, it's a VALID argument.

Use a Venn diagram to evaluate the following immediate inference: No talk radio shows are accurate sources of information. Therefore, some talk radio shows are not accurate sources of information.

The argument is INVALID from the Boolean standpoint because the conclusion is not apparent in the diagram. There may be no members of the "talk show hosts" class.

Use conversion, obversion, and/or contraposition to determine whether the following argument is valid or invalid. No child abusers are people who belong in day-care centers. Therefore, all child abusers are people who do not belong in day-care centers.

The conclusion is the obverse of the premise and they are logically equivalent. Thus, the argument is valid.

Find the contrapositive of the following propositions and state whether the result is logically equivalent or not logically equivalent to the original proposition. No unpersecuted migrants are migrants granted asylum.

The contrapositive is "No migrants who are not granted asylum are persecuted migrants." It is not logically equivalent to the original.

Find the converse of the following propositions and state whether the result is logically equivalent or not logically equivalent to the original proposition. All hurricanes are storms intensified by global warming.

The converse is "All storms intensified by global warming are hurricanes." It is not logically equivalent to the original.

Proposition

The information content of a statement, NOTE: For the purpose of this book, however, "proposition" and "statement" are used interchangeably

Find the obverse of the following propositions and state whether the result is logically equivalent or not logically equivalent to the original proposition. No cult leaders are people who fail to brainwash their followers.

The obverse is "All cult leaders are people who do not fail to brainwash their followers." It is logically equivalent to the original.

Inference

The reasoning process expressed by an argument NOTE: in the broad sense of the term,, "inference" is used interchangeably with "argument" (p. 5)

Use the modern square of opposition to determine whether the following immediate inferences are valid or invalid from the Boolean standpoint: All dry martinis are dangerous concoctions. Therefore, it is false that some dry martinis are not dangerous concoctions.

The statement negated by the conclusion (O) is the contradiction of the premise (A). Thus, the conclusion is logically equivalent to the premise. Thus, the argument is valid.

Paul is searching for a puppy that will grow up to be friendly with his children. His friend Barbara has an Airedale terrier that is good with her children. From this, Paul concludes that an Airedale puppy would make a good choice. How do the following facts bear on Paul's arguments? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Barbara's Airedale terrier has attributes a, b, c, and is friendly with children. Paul's Airedale terrier will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Paul's Airedale terrier probably will be friendly with children also. Fran, Penny, and Bob have Airdales that snap at their children.

These are counteranalogies that weaken the argument.

Andrew is thinking about buying stock in E-Tron, a new company that sells electronic equipment over the Internet. Six months ago, he bought shares in E-Boot, a new company that sells shoes over the internet, and the price of the stock doubled in two months. Andrew argues that if he buys E-Tron, the stock will double in two months. How do the following facts bear on Andrew's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: E-Boot has attributes a, b, c, and has stock that doubled in two months. E-Tron will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, E-Tron probably will have stock that doubles in two months also. During the past year, the stock of five other new companies that sell over the Internet doubled within two months of their initial offering.

These are five more primary analogues that strengthens the argument

Paul is searching for a puppy that will grow up to be friendly with his children. His friend Barbara has an Airedale terrier that is good with her children. From this, Paul concludes that an Airedale puppy would make a good choice. How do the following facts bear on Paul's arguments? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Barbara's Airedale terrier has attributes a, b, c, and is friendly with children. Paul's Airedale terrier will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Paul's Airedale terrier probably will be friendly with children also. Tim, Ed, and Irene have male Airdales that are friendly with their children.

These are more primary analogues that strengthen the argument.

Andrew is thinking about buying stock in E-Tron, a new company that sells electronic equipment over the Internet. Six months ago, he bought shares in E-Boot, a new company that sells shoes over the internet, and the price of the stock doubled in two months. Andrew argues that if he buys E-Tron, the stock will double in two months. How do the following facts bear on Andrew's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: E-Boot has attributes a, b, c, and has stock that doubled in two months. E-Tron will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, E-Tron probably will have stock that doubles in two months also. Two other companies that market jewelry and lingerie over the Internet have done poorly.

These are relevant counteranalogies, which make the argument weaker.

Harold needs to have his rugs cleaned, and his friend Veronica reports that Ajax Carpet Service did an excellent job on her rugs. From this, Harold concludes that Ajax will do an equally good job on his rugs. How do the following facts bear on Harold's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Ajax Carpet Service's job on Veronica's rugs had attributes a, b, c, and was excellent. Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs probably will be excellent also. All six additional people were born in Massachusetts.

This attribute shared among the primary analogues is not relevant; thus, it doesn't affect the strength of the argument.

Harold needs to have his rugs cleaned, and his friend Veronica reports that Ajax Carpet Service did an excellent job on her rugs. From this, Harold concludes that Ajax will do an equally good job on his rugs. How do the following facts bear on Harold's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Ajax Carpet Service's job on Veronica's rugs had attributes a, b, c, and was excellent. Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs probably will be excellent also. Veronica always had her rugs cleaned in mid-October, whereas Harold wants his done just a week before Easter.

This disanalogy is not relevant; thus, it doesn't affect the strength of the argument.

Harold needs to have his rugs cleaned, and his friend Veronica reports that Ajax Carpet Service did an excellent job on her rugs. From this, Harold concludes that Ajax will do an equally good job on his rugs. How do the following facts bear on Harold's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Ajax Carpet Service's job on Veronica's rugs had attributes a, b, c, and was excellent. Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs probably will be excellent also. Veronica hired Ajax several times, and Ajax always did an excellent job.

This increase the number of primary analogues (albeit, they are not very diverse) and thus making the argument stronger.

Harold needs to have his rugs cleaned, and his friend Veronica reports that Ajax Carpet Service did an excellent job on her rugs. From this, Harold concludes that Ajax will do an equally good job on his rugs. How do the following facts bear on Harold's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Ajax Carpet Service's job on Veronica's rugs had attributes a, b, c, and was excellent. Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs probably will be excellent also. Harold knows of six additional people who have had their carpets cleaned by AJax, and all six have been very pleased.

This increases the number of primary analogues, making the argument stronger.

Harold needs to have his rugs cleaned, and his friend Veronica reports that Ajax Carpet Service did an excellent job on her rugs. From this, Harold concludes that Ajax will do an equally good job on his rugs. How do the following facts bear on Harold's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Ajax Carpet Service's job on Veronica's rugs had attributes a, b, c, and was excellent. Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs probably will be excellent also. Veronica's rugs are wool, whereas Harold's are rayon.

This introduces a relevant disanalogy, thus making the argument weaker.

Paul is searching for a puppy that will grow up to be friendly with his children. His friend Barbara has an Airedale terrier that is good with her children. From this, Paul concludes that an Airedale puppy would make a good choice. How do the following facts bear on Paul's arguments? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Barbara's Airedale terrier has attributes a, b, c, and is friendly with children. Paul's Airedale terrier will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Paul's Airedale terrier probably will be friendly with children also. Paul plans to give his dog special training, but Barbara's dog received no such training.

This is a relevant disanalogy; it does nothing within the confines of the argument from analogy but provides an independent premise that would strengthen the argument and make the conclusion more likely

Andrew is thinking about buying stock in E-Tron, a new company that sells electronic equipment over the Internet. Six months ago, he bought shares in E-Boot, a new company that sells shoes over the internet, and the price of the stock doubled in two months. Andrew argues that if he buys E-Tron, the stock will double in two months. How do the following facts bear on Andrew's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: E-Boot has attributes a, b, c, and has stock that doubled in two months. E-Tron will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, E-Tron probably will have stock that doubles in two months also. E-Tron will be run by the same management team that runs E-Boot.

This is a relevant similarity that strengthens the argument.

Paul is searching for a puppy that will grow up to be friendly with his children. His friend Barbara has an Airedale terrier that is good with her children. From this, Paul concludes that an Airedale puppy would make a good choice. How do the following facts bear on Paul's arguments? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Barbara's Airedale terrier has attributes a, b, c, and is friendly with children. Paul's Airedale terrier will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Paul's Airedale terrier probably will be friendly with children also. The puppy that Paul plans to get is of the same subspecies as Barbara's dog.

This is a relevant similarity that strengthens the argument.

Paul is searching for a puppy that will grow up to be friendly with his children. His friend Barbara has an Airedale terrier that is good with her children. From this, Paul concludes that an Airedale puppy would make a good choice. How do the following facts bear on Paul's arguments? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Barbara's Airedale terrier has attributes a, b, c, and is friendly with children. Paul's Airedale terrier will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Paul's Airedale terrier probably will be friendly with children also. Paul changes his conclusion to state that if he gets an Airedale puppy, it will grow up to at least tolerate children.

This makes the conclusion less specific and, thus, strengthens the argument

Harold needs to have his rugs cleaned, and his friend Veronica reports that Ajax Carpet Service did an excellent job on her rugs. From this, Harold concludes that Ajax will do an equally good job on his rugs. How do the following facts bear on Harold's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Ajax Carpet Service's job on Veronica's rugs had attributes a, b, c, and was excellent. Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs probably will be excellent also. Harold changes his conclusion to state that Ajax will get his carpets approximately as clean as it has gotten Veronica's

This makes the conclusion less specific, making the argument stronger.

Andrew is thinking about buying stock in E-Tron, a new company that sells electronic equipment over the Internet. Six months ago, he bought shares in E-Boot, a new company that sells shoes over the internet, and the price of the stock doubled in two months. Andrew argues that if he buys E-Tron, the stock will double in two months. How do the following facts bear on Andrew's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: E-Boot has attributes a, b, c, and has stock that doubled in two months. E-Tron will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, E-Tron probably will have stock that doubles in two months also. Andrew changes his conclusion to state that E-Tron stock will triple within the next two months.

This makes the conclusion more specific (it actually introduces a disanalogy into the conclusion) and, thus, makes the argument weaker

Paul is searching for a puppy that will grow up to be friendly with his children. His friend Barbara has an Airedale terrier that is good with her children. From this, Paul concludes that an Airedale puppy would make a good choice. How do the following facts bear on Paul's arguments? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Barbara's Airedale terrier has attributes a, b, c, and is friendly with children. Paul's Airedale terrier will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Paul's Airedale terrier probably will be friendly with children also. Fran's, Penny, and Bob's Airdales all came from different litters.

This makes the counteranalogies more diverse, which makes the argument weaker than if the they were less diverse.

Paul is searching for a puppy that will grow up to be friendly with his children. His friend Barbara has an Airedale terrier that is good with her children. From this, Paul concludes that an Airedale puppy would make a good choice. How do the following facts bear on Paul's arguments? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Barbara's Airedale terrier has attributes a, b, c, and is friendly with children. Paul's Airedale terrier will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Paul's Airedale terrier probably will be friendly with children also. Tim's, Ed's, and Irene's dogs all came from the same litter.

This makes the primary analogues less diverse, which makes the argument weaker than if they were more diverse.

Harold needs to have his rugs cleaned, and his friend Veronica reports that Ajax Carpet Service did an excellent job on her rugs. From this, Harold concludes that Ajax will do an equally good job on his rugs. How do the following facts bear on Harold's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Ajax Carpet Service's job on Veronica's rugs had attributes a, b, c, and was excellent. Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs probably will be excellent also. All six own rugs made of different materials.

This makes the primary analogues more diverse, making the argument stronger.

Andrew is thinking about buying stock in E-Tron, a new company that sells electronic equipment over the Internet. Six months ago, he bought shares in E-Boot, a new company that sells shoes over the internet, and the price of the stock doubled in two months. Andrew argues that if he buys E-Tron, the stock will double in two months. How do the following facts bear on Andrew's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: E-Boot has attributes a, b, c, and has stock that doubled in two months. E-Tron will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, E-Tron probably will have stock that doubles in two months also. These five companies market Swiss chocolates, tires, appliances, furniture, and luggage.

This makes the primary analogues more diverse, which makes that argument stronger.

Andrew is thinking about buying stock in E-Tron, a new company that sells electronic equipment over the Internet. Six months ago, he bought shares in E-Boot, a new company that sells shoes over the internet, and the price of the stock doubled in two months. Andrew argues that if he buys E-Tron, the stock will double in two months. How do the following facts bear on Andrew's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: E-Boot has attributes a, b, c, and has stock that doubled in two months. E-Tron will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, E-Tron probably will have stock that doubles in two months also. E-Boot is incorporated in New Jersey, whereas E-Tron is incorporated in Delaware.

This may be a relevant disanalogy that affects the strength of the argument (it depends on the specific differences in corporate law between the two states)

Paul is searching for a puppy that will grow up to be friendly with his children. His friend Barbara has an Airedale terrier that is good with her children. From this, Paul concludes that an Airedale puppy would make a good choice. How do the following facts bear on Paul's arguments? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Barbara's Airedale terrier has attributes a, b, c, and is friendly with children. Paul's Airedale terrier will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Paul's Airedale terrier probably will be friendly with children also. Barbara's dog is a female, but Paul plans to get a male.

This may be a relevant disanalogy that weakens the argument.

Harold needs to have his rugs cleaned, and his friend Veronica reports that Ajax Carpet Service did an excellent job on her rugs. From this, Harold concludes that Ajax will do an equally good job on his rugs. How do the following facts bear on Harold's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Ajax Carpet Service's job on Veronica's rugs had attributes a, b, c, and was excellent. Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs probably will be excellent also. Ajax has recently undergone a change in management.

This seems like a big disanalogy that makes the argument weaker.

Harold needs to have his rugs cleaned, and his friend Veronica reports that Ajax Carpet Service did an excellent job on her rugs. From this, Harold concludes that Ajax will do an equally good job on his rugs. How do the following facts bear on Harold's argument? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Ajax Carpet Service's job on Veronica's rugs had attributes a, b, c, and was excellent. Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Ajax Carpet Service's job on Harold's rugs probably will be excellent also. The Environmental Protection Agency recently banned the cleaning solution Ajax has used for many years.

This seems like another big disanalogy that makes the argument weaker.

Paul is searching for a puppy that will grow up to be friendly with his children. His friend Barbara has an Airedale terrier that is good with her children. From this, Paul concludes that an Airedale puppy would make a good choice. How do the following facts bear on Paul's arguments? This argument can be translated into the following argument from analogy: Barbara's Airedale terrier has attributes a, b, c, and is friendly with children. Paul's Airedale terrier will have attributes a, b, c. Therefore, Paul's Airedale terrier probably will be friendly with children also. The puppy that Paul plans to get was born in the month of June, just as Barbara's way.

This similarity doesn't seem relevant; thus, it does not affect the strength of the argument.

Identify the major, minor, and middle terms, as well as the mood and figure of the following categorical syllogism. Some racists are not people suited to be immigration officials, given that some humanitarians are not people suited to be immigration officials, and no humanitarians are racists.

[Note that the conclusion is "some racists are not people suited to be immigration officials"] Major Term: "people suited to be immigration officials" Minor Term: "racists" Middle Term: "humanitarians" [Note the the middle term is the subject term of both the major and minor premises] Mood-Figure: OEO-3

For the following argument, determine whether the missing statement is a premise or a conclusion. Then supply the missing statement such that it will convert the enthymeme into a valid argument. If a symphony orchestra has effective fundraisers, it will survive; and the Cleveland symphony has survived for years.

[The only way to make the argument valid is to assume that one of the premises is missing (making the last clause the conclusion despite any indicator words). The following is a translation of the argument with the missing premise (MP) making it a valid AAA-1 argument] All symphony orchestras that have effective fundraisers are symphony orchestras that survive. MP: All symphony orchestras identical to the Cleveland symphony are symphony orchestras that have effective fundraisers. All symphony orchestras identical to the Cleveland symphony are symphony orchestras that survive.

For the following argument, determine whether the missing statement is a premise or a conclusion. Then supply the missing statement such that it will convert the enthymeme into a valid argument. Higher life-forms could not have evolved through merely random processes, because no organized beings could have evolved that way.

[one of the premises is missing. The following is a translation of the argument with the missing premise (MP) making it a valid EAE-1 argument] No organized beings are beings that could have evolved through merely random processes. MP: All higher life-forms are organized being. No higher life-forms are beings that could have evolved through merely random processes.

Argument

a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion)

Is the following passage an argument or not? Dachshunds are ideal dogs for small children, as they are already stretched and pulled to such a length that the child cannot do much harm one way or the other. (Robert Benchley, quoted in Cold Noses and Warm Hearts)

an argument (the conclusion is "Dachshunds are ideal dogs for small children")

What fallacy is the following argument committing? Sure, there isn't any hard evidence that homeopathy works, but there's still so much we don't know about human biology—so I'm going to keep trying it, just in case.

appeal to ignorance

What fallacy is the following argument committing? For every atheist in the world, there are thousands of people who believe in God. Billions of believers can't be wrong, so God must be a real being.

appeal to the people (ad populum)

Premises indicators

because, since, given that, assuming that, as shown by, for the reason(s) that, as indicated by, the fact that, it follows that

Is the following argument an inductive or deductive? Eternity is simultaneously whole. But time has a before and an after. Therefore time and eternity are not the same thing. (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica)

deductive (argument from definition)

Is the following argument an inductive or deductive? No e-mail messages are eloquent creations. Some love letters are eloquent creations. Therefore, some love letters are not e-mail messages.

deductive (categorical EIO-2 syllogism)

What fallacy is the following argument committing? The First Amendment to the Constitution prevents the government from interfering with the free exercise of religion. The liturgical practice of the Religion of Internal Enlightenment involves human sacrifice. Therefore, it would be wrong for the government to interfere with this religious practice.

fallacy of accident

What fallacy is the following argument committing? There are more churches in New York City than in any other city in the nation, and more crimes are committed in New York City than anywhere else. So, if we are to eliminate crime, we must abolish the churches.

fallacy of false cause (specifically, non causa pro causa)

Is the following argument an inductive or deductive? Paying off terrorists in exchange for hostages is not a wise policy, since such a policy will only lead them to taking more hostages in the future.

inductive (prediction)

Is the following deductive argument valid or invalid? If George Washington was beheaded, then George Washington died. George Washington died. Therefore, George Washington was beheaded.

invalid (if the premises were true, the conclusion could still be false — GW could have died from some other cause)

Is the following deductive argument valid or invalid? All leopards with lungs are carnivores. Therefore, all leopards are carnivores.

invalid (if the premises were true, the conclusion could still be false, unless there was another premise stipulating that "All leopards are leopard with lungs" or "No leopards are leopards without lungs")

Is the following passage an argument or not? If someone avoids and is afraid of everything, standing firm against nothing, he becomes cowardly; if he is afraid of nothing at all and goes to face everything, he becomes rash. Similarly, if he gratifies himself with every pleasure and abstains from none, he becomes intemperate; if he avoids them all, he becomes some sort of insensible person. Temperance and bravery, then, are ruined by excess and deficiency, but preserved by the mean. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics)

most likely an argument (the conclusion is "Temperance and bravery . . . are ruined by excess and deficiency, but preserved by the mean")

Is the following sentence a statement or not? Let's go to a movie tonight.

not a statement (a proposal)

Is the following passage an argument or not? The turkey vulture is called by that name because its red featherless head resembles the head of a wild turkey.

not an argument (an explanation)

Non-Statements

sentences that cannot be said to be either true or false (questions, proposals, suggestions, commands, exclamations, p. 2).

Is the following inductive argument strong or weak? When Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, he left behind a gold-plated Schwinn bicycle, which he used to ride around on the moon's surface. Probably that bicycle is still up there on the moon.

strong (if the premise is true, the conclusion is likely)

conclusion Indicators

thus, therefore, hence, consequently, as a result, so, accordingly, clearly, must be that, shows that, conclude that, follows that, for this reason.