PHIL 105 Quiz 4
Which of the following arguments is an ad hominem?
It's true that James blurted out "checkmate" during the game, but he wasn't even one of the players, so you must ignore what he said. The correct answer is A. Because it begins with a premise about a person, and draws a conclusion that rejects that person's testimony, the argument in (a) is an ad hominem argument. None of the arguments in (b), (c), and (d) are ad hominems, since none of them reject the testimony of the person they mention.
Which of the following arguments is an appeal to authority?
James said "checkmate" during the game, and James's testimony is as reliable as anybody's, so you should conclude that there is a checkmate. The correct answer is B. Because it begins with a premise about a person, and draws a conclusion that supports that person's point, the argument in (b) is an argument from authority. None of the arguments in (a), (c), (d), or (e) are arguments from authority, since none of them both begin with a premise about James and concludes with support for James' testimony.
A silencer is an argument in which the premises are about the person making a point, and the conclusion is that
they are not entitled to make that point in the context in which they did, so you should not listen to them. Feedback: The correct answer is A. Silencer arguments are arguments, which state that a certain person does not have the right, or the permission, to offer the testimony that she offers.
Which of the following claims is irrefutable?
Anyone who believes in God can feel His presence The correct answer is A. Here's why the claim "anyone who really believes in God can feel His presence" is irrefutable. Consider someone who attempts to refute this claim. In order to refute this claim, one would have to produce a case, in which a person really believes in God, but nonetheless does not feel God's presence. To such a person, however, the author of the above argument could simply maintain that the critic doesn't really believe in God, and that this is proven by the fact that the critic cannot feel God's presence. The claim, in other words, rules out the possibility of any counterexamples. In this sense, the claim is irrefutable.
Which of the following expressions is syntactically ambiguous?
Joe and Sally are siblings Feedback: The correct answer is D. The phrase "Joe and Sally are siblings" could mean two different things. On one hand, it could mean that Joe is a sibling of Sally, and vice-versa. On the other hand, it could mean that Joe is a sibling of someone or other, and that Sally is also a sibling of someone or other. Because this ambiguity is not the result of a single term, such as "sibling," having multiple meanings, the ambiguity is syntactic rather than semantic. It is true that the word "like" has multiple meanings, and can refer to an affection in addition to functioning as a comparative term. However, the presence of a single ambiguous word in a sentence does not, by itself, make the sentence syntactically ambiguous.
Which of the following arguments is an ad hominem?
Lying Larry told me that it will rain today, therefore, it probably will not rain today. Feedback: The correct answer is B. Because it begins with a premise about a person, and draws a conclusion that rejects that person's testimony, the argument in (b) is an ad hominem argument. None of the arguments in (a), (c), and (d) are ad hominems, since none of them reject the conclusion of the person they mention. Finally, (e) is not an ad hominem because it does not conclude that Sam's testimony is false from Sam's screaming. (e) does not include the word "therefore," in other words.
Consider the following argument: "Professors must be extremely honest: ask any of them and they will assure you of it!" This argument is a(n)
appeal to authority Feedback: The correct answer is B. The above argument begins with the premise that professors will assure you of their honesty. It concludes that professors are honest. What the argument assumes, then, is that professors' assurances are authoritative. It assumes, in other words, that professors' testimony on their own honesty is particularly good.
Which of the following expressions is vague?
The correct answer is E. Because there is no sharp boundary between things that are fast and things that are not fast, the term "fast" is vague. To see why the term "fast" is vague, just imagine a series of moving objects, the first of which moves very slowly, and each subsequent member of which moves slightly faster than the last. At the beginning of the series, the objects are definitely not fast. At some later point in the series, however, there are moving objects, which definitely are fast. Yet there is no sharp, precise boundary between the fast objects and the non-fast objects. Between the items that are definitely fast and the items that are definitely not, there are many borderline cases. For this reason, the term "fast" is vague. The terms "twice," "hour," "zero," and "integer" are not vague. Either something has occurred twice, or else it is not. Things do not occur twice to various degrees; a thing cannot occur more twice than another. Likewise for "hour" and "zero." Either a period of time is an hour, or else it is not. A period of time cannot be more hourly than another hourly period. Likewise, either a quantity is zero, or it is not. There is no possible case, in which two quantities are zero, but to different degrees. Nor is it possible for there to be numbers, which are borderline cases of integers. Either a number is an integer, or else it is not. For this reason, "integer" is not vague.
Suppose that you pull an unfamiliar book off the library shelf and start reading it. You are startled to find that this book describes your life story, down to its most intimate details, with perfect accuracy. You read the book right up to the point at which it tells of you pulling an unfamiliar book off the library shelf, reading it, and discovering that it describes your life story, down to its most intimate details. Now, you wonder: Should you keep reading this book? The answer is: Yes, you should keep reading it! Because that is precisely what the book says you should do." This argument is an example of a
appeal to authority Feedback: The correct answer is C. The conclusion of the above argument is, "yes, you should keep reading it [i.e.the book]," and its premise is that "[reading the book] is precisely what the book says you should do." The argument assumes that the book is authoritative on what you should do, in other words, and it concludes that you should accept the book's testimony and keep reading. By recommending a course of action on the basis of the fact that an authority--in this case, the book--recommends it, this argument is an argument from authority. At first, it might seem like this argument is circular in some way. The book recommends itself to be read, after all. However, closer examination reveals that, technically, this argument is not circular. Here's why. The argument's conclusion is that you should keep reading the book. If the argument was circular, the premise would have to include, or be equivalent to, the claim that you should keep reading the book. The premise, however, is that the book says you should keep reading it. To claim that the book says you should keep reading, moreover, is different from claiming that you should actually keep reading. The premise does not contain the conclusion. So, although this is an argument from authority, it is not a circular argument.
Consider the following argument: "Every single one of Fred's ex-girlfriends claims that he is a cad. And yet his current girlfriend Barbie claims that Ken is a true gentleman. Clearly, Barbie would know better than any of Ken's ex-girlfriends, since she is currently dating Ken. Therefore, we should take Barbie's word for it." This argument is a(n)
appeal to authority Feedback: The correct answer is B. An argument appeals to authority whenever it supports an argument on the basis of something about the person, who is making that argument. In this case, the argument supports the conclusion that Ken is not a cad, and it does so by citing something about Barbie, the person who is making that argument. (More specifically, it cites that she is dating Ken.)
To refute a straw man is to argue against a view that
you do not accurately understand or represent Feedback: The correct answer is A. To refute a straw man is to misrepresent an opponent's position while attempting to refute it. In other words, it is to refute a position, which one falsely claims to be held by an opponent.
An argument begs the question when
you have no reason to believe the premises unless you already have a reason to believe the conclusion. Feedback: The correct answer is B. An argument begs the question when the premises cannot be justified independently of accepting the conclusion. If, in order to find an argument's premises plausible, one has to already accept the conclusion of that argument, then the argument begs the question.
Which of the following is syntactically ambiguous?
British left waffles on Falkland Islands. Feedback: The correct answer is A. The phrase "British left waffles on Falkland Islands" could mean two different things. On one hand, it could mean that politicians and people, who constitute the politically left wing of British politics, have changed their opinions about the Falkland Islands. On the other hand, "British left waffles on Falkland Islands" could mean that some British people left a certain breakfast food on the Falkland Islands. Because this ambiguity is due to an ambiguity in the entire phrase "British left waffles," and not just to an ambiguity in the word "left" or "waffles," the ambiguity in (a) is a syntactic one rather than a semantic one.
Which of the following arguments is an ad hominem?
George Carlin advises people not to vote, but he's a jerk, so you shouldn't do what he says. The correct answer is C. Because it begins with a premise about a person, namely that George Carlin is a jerk, and because it draws a conclusion that rejects Carlin's point, the argument in (c) is an ad hominem argument. None of the arguments in (a), (b), or (d) are ad hominems, since none of them reject the conclusion of the person they mention, based on a claim about that person. (a) does not urge anyone to reject what Joe says; it just mentions that Joe's status as a genius does not make him right about everything. Rather than being an ad hominem, (a) is the rejection of an argument from authority. (b) cannot be an ad hominem, since (b) does not mention anybody. Finally, (d) is not an ad hominem because it does not reject the point of the person it mentions. (d) claims that Walter is more credible, and concludes that Walter is correct. Since (d) supports Walter's point rather than attacking it, (d) is not an ad hominem.
Which of the following arguments is an appeal to authority?
Honest Abe told me that it will rain today, therefore, it will probably rain today. Feedback: The correct answer is A. Because it begins with a premise about a person, and draws a conclusion that supports that person's point, the argument in (a) is an argument from authority. None of the arguments in (b), (c), (d), or (e) are arguments from authority, since none of them support the point of the person they mention.
Which of the following arguments is an ad hominem?
It's true that John blurted out in court that the defendant was guilty, but John wasn't entitled to speak on that occasion, so you must ignore what he said. Feedback: The correct answer is A. Of all the arguments among (a)-(d), only (a) begins with a claim about John, and concludes that John's testimony is faulty in some way. All of the other arguments among (b)-(d) actually support John's testimony in some way or other. Since an ad hominem is an argument, which begins with an assumption about a person and concludes that the person's testimony is faulty in some way, it follows that only (b) is an ad hominem. Since the argument in (b) concludes that John was not entitled to speak, the argument in (b) is a silencer argument. It is an argument, in other words, which denies that a person is justified or permitted to offer her testimony.
Which of the following arguments is an appeal to authority?
Walter thinks voting is pointless, but Ram thinks it is important. I find Walter more credible, so I'm not going to vote. Feedback: The correct answer is D. Because it begins with a premise about a person, namely that Walter is credible, and because it draws a conclusion that supports Walter's point, the argument in (d) is an appeal to authority. None of the arguments in (a), (b), or (c) are appeals to authority, since none of them support the conclusion of the person they mention, based on a claim about that person. (a) does not urge anyone to support what Joe says; it just warns against supporting Joe's point on the basis of his genius. Rather than being an appeal to authority, (a) is the rejection of such an appeal. (b) cannot be an ad hominem, since (b) does not mention anybody. Finally, (c) is not an appeal to authority because it does not support the point of the person it mentions. (c) claims that George Carlin is a jerk, and concludes that George Carlin is incorrect. Since (c) rejects George Carlin's point rather than supporting it, (c) is not an appeal to authority.
Which of the following sentences is syntactically ambiguous?
Close doors and open windows. Feedback: The correct answer is A. The phrase "close doors and open windows" could mean two different things. On one hand, it could be a command for people to close doors, and for people to open windows. On the other hand, it could be a command for people to close two sorts of things, namely doors and open windows. Because this ambiguity is not the result of a single term, such as "door," having multiple meanings, the ambiguity is syntactic rather than semantic. It is true that the sentence "I need to deposit some money at the bank" is ambiguous, but its ambiguity is solely due to the semantic ambiguity of the word "bank." Since its ambiguity depends on the ambiguity of a single term, the sentence "I need to deposit some money at the bank" is not syntactically ambiguous. It is only semantically ambiguous.
Consider the following argument: "Tony claims to have found the Higgs Boson. But Tony is constantly lying to make himself sound important. So I bet he hasn't found the Higgs Boson at all." This argument is an example of
a denier Feedback: The correct answer is C. A denier argument is one, which begins with some observation about a person, and which concludes that the person's conclusion is false. A denier argument does not conclude that the person in question is unjustified, or that the person has no right to argue for her conclusion. A denier argument merely holds that a certain conclusion is false, and it does so on the basis of something about the person who draws that conclusion. In the above argument, one of the premises claims something about Tony. It claims, specifically, that he has been lying to make himself sound important. The conclusion is Tony's testimony--i.e. that he found the Higgs Boson--is false. Because it begins with a claim about Tony, and because it concludes that Tony's testimony is false, the above argument is a dismisser ad hominem.
Consider the following argument: "From my current perspective, the Tower of Pisa is leaning to the left. And in his second term, Barack Obama has been leaning to the left. Therefore, the Tower of Pisa and Barack Obama have something in common." This argument involves
a fallacy of equivocation Feedback: The correct answer is C. Words like "left," "right," "moderate," and "extreme" are systematically ambiguous, since they simultaneously refer to spatial orientations as well as political positions. Here, the above argument conflates the spatial and political meanings of the word "left," and fallaciously concludes that Barack Obama has something in common with the Tower of Pisa. Since the argument assumes there is only one meaning of "leaning to the left," and since there are in fact, different meanings, which apply differently to Barack Obama and the Tower of Pisa, the above argument commits a fallacy of equivocation.
To refute a straw man is to show that
a particular argument is not sound, but in the course of doing so to misrepresent one's target argument. Feedback: The correct answer is C. To refute a straw man is to misrepresent an opponent's position while attempting to refute it. In other words, it is to refute a position, which one falsely claims to be held by an opponent. Despite the fallacy's name, its presence in an argument does not depend on whether anybody is mentioning, or using, straw.
Consider the following dialogue: Hansel: The recent spate of mass shootings by deranged individuals shows that it is much too easy for the wrong people to obtain guns in our country. Restrictions on the sale and transfer of guns should be tightened. Gretel: Oh, so you want us to live in a tightly controlled police state where individuals have no power and the central authority controls everything? Well, that was how things were done in the Soviet Union—and look what happened to them. In this exchange, Gretel refutes
a straw man Feedback: The correct answer is B. In the above argument, Hansel proposes that "restrictions on the sale and transfer of guns should be tightened." Gretel, however, takes him to be saying that we should "live in a tightly controlled police state where individuals have no power and the central authority controls everything." Gretel then attempts to refute this position by comparing it to the Soviet Union. One of the main problems with Gretel's argument, however, is that she misrepresents Hansel's claim. Hansel did not state that we should live in a society in which individuals have no power; he stated that restrictions on gun sales should be tightened.
Consider the following argument: "He must be wrong, because he is high on drugs." This argument is an example of a(n)
ad hominem denier Feedback: The correct answer is C. A denier ad hominem argument is one, which begins with an assumption about a person, and which concludes that the person's testimony is false. In this case, the person is an unnamed "he," the assumption is that he is high on drugs, and the conclusion is that he is wrong. To say that he is wrong, however, is to say that his testimony is false. The argument, therefore, is an ad hominem denier.
Consider the following argument: "Every climate scientist I've talked to says that global warming is occurring. But of course they would say that! They are scientists whose work is funded by the Obama administration, and so they need to advance the leftist agenda of that administration. Naturally, therefore, we should not take their view all that seriously." This argument is a(n)
ad hominem dismisser Feedback: The correct answer is A. Because the argument assumes that the scientists need to advance a leftist agenda, and because the argument concludes that the scientists' views are unreliable, the argument above is an ad hominem dismisser. A dismisser argument begins with an assumption about someone, and concludes that their testimony is unreliable, unjustified, or lacks the proper amount of evidence. Since the argument's conclusion is "we should not take their view all that seriously," it is a dismisser. If the argument were a denier ad hominem, it would state that the scientists' views are false . Yet the argument does not state this. Likewise, if the argument were a silencer, it would deny that the scientists have a right to offer their testimony. It doesn't claim this, either. The argument is not circular, since it does not assume that we should not take the scientists' views seriously. Nor is the argument an appeal to authority, since its conclusion does not support anyone's conclusion. Finally, the argument does not require some ambiguity among the premises, so it does not commit a fallacy of ambiguity, either.
Consider the following argument: "You can't trust what he says about Obama, because he is a Republican." This argument is an example of a(n)
ad hominem dismisser Feedback: The correct answer is B. A dismisser ad hominem argument is one, which begins with an observation about a person, and which concludes that the person's testimony is unreliable or unjustified. In this case, the fact about the person is that he is a Republican, and the conclusion is that "you can't trust what he says." To say that someone's testimony is untrustworthy, however, is to say that it is unreliable or unjustified. The argument, therefore, is an ad hominem dismisser.
Consider the following argument: "You have no right to say anything against the war, because you've never served in the military." This argument is an example of a(n)
ad hominem silencer Feedback: The correct answer is D. Since the argument in (8) concludes that you have no right to speak, the argument in (8) is a silencer argument. It is an argument, in other words, which begins with a claim about a person (in this case, that you have never served in the military), and it concludes that you are not justified or permitted to offer your testimony. The argument is not a denier , because it does not say that anyone's claim is false. Rather, it states that someone does not have the right to make any claims, true or false.
Which of the following expressions is semantically ambiguous?
all of the above Feedback: The correct answer is E. The terms "arrest," "phone," "enter," and "color" are all semantically ambiguous. The terms "arrest," "phone," and "color" could each be a noun or a verb. One can arrest somebody, but one can also make an arrest. One can phone someone, but one can also use a phone. One can color something, or one can have a favorite color. The word "enter" is ambiguous, too, since it either refer to the act of going inside something (as in, "the gladiators entered the coliseum"), but it can also refer to the act of recording something, or making an entry (as in "make sure you enter that into your report.")
A slippery slope argument is
an argument that cites insignificant changes along a continuum. Feedback: The correct answer is E. A slippery slope argument is one that cites miniscule, insignificant changes along a continuum, and which claims that, if any one such change is made, then further, more radical changes along the same continuum would be equally insignificant. Thus, a slippery slope argument might claim that, if there is no significant different between tapping someone on the shoulder and tapping them forcefully, then there is no significant difference between tapping someone on the shoulder and bashing someone hard on the shoulder with both fists. Or a slippery slope argument might claim that, if having two beers is not significantly different from having three, then there should be no significant difference between having two beers and having ten.
An argument that equivocates (or commits the fallacy of equivocation) is
an argument that depends on an ambiguity. Feedback: The correct answer is A. An argument equivocates exactly when it appeals to a single phrase, which means different things among the premises, or which means different things in the premises and the conclusion. Thus, an example of equivocating would be the following: "baseball players use bats to strike baseballs; bats are flying mammals; therefore baseball players use flying mammals to strike baseballs." The argument equivocates on the term "bat," which means one thing in the first premise, and another in the second.
Consider the following argument: "Capital punishment is clearly wrong. Every death row inmate I've ever spoken to says so. And who would know better than a death row inmate about how wrong capital punishment is?" This argument is a(n)
appeal to authority. Feedback: The correct answer is B. Here, the argument assumes the truth of a conclusion on the basis of the persons who support it. In this case, the conclusion is that capital punishment is wrong, and the basis is that persons who support it are death row inmates. The argument assumes, in other words, that death row inmates are right, or that they are reliable, or that they have a special permission to weigh in on whether capital punishment works. In any case, the argument is an argument from authority, since it supports a conclusion by citing a fact about the person(s) making it.
Which of the following expressions is semantically ambiguous?
bank Feedback: The correct answer is A. The term "bank" is semantically ambiguous. On one hand, the term can refer to the edge of a river, stream, or body of water. On the other hand, the term can also refer to a financial institution, which stores wealth.
Consider the following argument: "There is a report in the Wall Street Journal that says that the Financial Times is a very reliable newspaper. But when we look at the Financial Times, we see a report that says that the Wall Street Journal is a very reliable newspaper. Therefore, both papers must be very reliable." This argument is an example of a
begging the question Feedback: The correct answer is D. The conclusion of this argument is that both the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal are reliable. The premises of the argument are first, that according to the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times is reliable; and second, that, according to the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal is reliable. In order for these reports to justify the conclusion, however, one must assume that both the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times are reliable when reporting on one another. One must assume, in other words that both papers are reliable. This means that one must assume the conclusion in order to justify the premises. For this reason, the above argument commits the fallacy of begging the question.
Which of the following expressions is semantically ambiguous?
cardinal The correct answer is A. The term "cardinal" is semantically ambiguous. On one hand, the term "cardinal" can refer to an official of the Catholic Church, whose rank is immediately below that of the Pope. On the other hand, the term "cardinal" can also refer to a certain species of red bird.
Consider the following argument: "If you smoke one cigarette today, then you will end up smoking another one tomorrow, and more the day after that, and before you know it you will smoking two packs a day and shortening your life expectancy by decades. So you should not even smoke one cigarette today." This argument contains a
casual slippery slope fallacy Feedback: The correct answer is C. A causal slippery slope argument states that, if a certain claim or course of action is accepted, then other, increasingly more radical claims or courses of action will inevitably follow. Here, the initial course of action is smoking a single cigarette today, and the increasingly radical courses of action are smoking more cigarettes more often.
Consider the following argument: "You should not start skipping assigned reading, because, once you skip some, you will skip more and more until you get into trouble academically." This argument is an example of a(n)
causal slippery slope argument Feedback: The correct answer is C. A causal slippery slope argument states that, if a certain claim or course of action is accepted, then other, increasingly more radical claims or courses of action will inevitably follow. Here, the initial course of action is skipping some assigned reading, and the increasingly radical courses of action are skipping more, until one gets into trouble academically.
Consider the following argument: "I know that the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so. And if the Bible says so, then it must be true, since the Bible is the word of God." This argument is a
circular argument The correct answer is D. Circular arguments include their conclusions in their premises. In the above argument, the conclusion is "the Bible is the word of God." The premises are, first, that the Bible says that the Bible is the word of God, and second, that the Bible is the word of God. Because this second premise is the very same claim as the argument's conclusion, the argument is circular.
Consider the following argument: "The law should not have any height minimum for airplane pilots, because it does not make sense to allow one person but not another to become a pilot, when one is only a centimeter taller than the other." This argument is an example of a(n)
conceptual slippery slope argument Feedback: The correct answer is A. A conceptual slippery slope argument argues that a series of actions cannot change the quality of some thing. Such arguments proceed by citing that there are insignificant changes along a continuum, and by concluding that further changes are equally insignificant. Here, the argument assumes that a centimeter's difference in height is insignificant, and that there should therefore be no significant difference between pilots of any height. It concludes, in other words, that no change in height would be significant with respect to becoming a pilot.
Consider the following argument: "Every time I've been in car accidents, it has not been my fault. Of course, some other drivers say that too, even though they are wrong. But you can trust me on this one: after all, would a faultless driver like me lie about this? Clearly not!" This argument is a(n)
fallacy of begging the question Feedback: The correct answer is C. The argument concludes that the driver has never been at fault before. The premise, however, is that the driver is faultless. In order to believe that the driver is faultless, however, one must already believe that the driver has never been at fault before. The premise, in other words, is stronger than the conclusion, and one would have to believe the conclusion already to accept it. Since an argument begs the question when its premises can only be justified by accepting the conclusion, this argument begs the premises. It's worth noting, too, that this argument is also an argument from authority. It cites something about the driver--namely, that she is faultless--and it concludes that the driver's testimony is trustworthy. However, "argument from authority" is not one of the options among (a)-(e).
Consider the following argument: "The radio is on the table. Therefore, the radio is on." This argument is a
fallacy of equivocation The correct answer is C. An argument equivocates exactly when it appeals to a single phrase, which means different things among the premises, or which means different things in the premises and the conclusion. Because the word "on" could mean two different things, and because it does mean different things in the premise and the conclusion of the above argument, the above argument commits the fallacy of equivocation. In the premise, "on" functions as a preposition, and attaches to the noun phrase "the radio" to produce the prepositional phrase, "on the table." In the conclusion, "on" functions as an adjective, and refers to the state of being electrically activated.
Consider the following argument: "Twenty is an irrational number of children for any couple to have. Two is a rational number of children for any couple to have. Therefore, two is a rational number and twenty is irrational." This argument is a
fallacy of equivocation resulting from semantic ambiguity. Feedback: The correct answer is B. An argument equivocates on a semantic ambiguity exactly when it appeals to a single word or name, which means different things among the premises, or which means different things in the premises and the conclusion. In the above argument, the words "rational" and "irrational" mean different things in the premises and the conclusion. In the premises, "rational" means "sensible," and "rational number" means "sensible amount." Likewise, in the premises, "irrational" means "senseless," and "irrational number" means "an immoderate or senseless amount." In the conclusion, however, "rational number" means "a number, which can be represented as a fraction, whose numerator and denominator are both integers, and whose denominator is not zero." Likewise, in the conclusion, "irrational number" refers to a number, which cannot be so represented. Because the above argument appeals to these two different meanings of the terms "rational number" and "irrational number," the argument commits the fallacy of semantic ambiguity.
Consider the following argument: "The 1980's newspaper headline reads 'British Left Waffles on Falkland Islands." So the British must have left their waffles somewhere. Those British must be very forgetful when it comes to their waffles!" This argument is a
fallacy of equivocation resulting from syntactic ambiguity. Feedback: The correct answer is C. The phrase "British left waffles on Falkland Islands" could mean two different things. On one hand, it could mean that politicians and people, who constitute the politically left wing of British politics, have changed their opinions about the Falkland Islands. On the other hand, "British left waffles on Falkland Islands" could mean that some British people left a certain breakfast food--namely waffles--on the Falkland Islands. Because this ambiguity is due to an ambiguity in the entire phrase "British left waffles," and not just to an ambiguity in the word "left" or "waffles," the ambiguity in (19) is a syntactic one rather than a semantic one.
Consider the following argument: "Either the United States needs to eradicate its national debt within the next twelve months, or we can expect interest rates to go up to 45 percent. Since that rise in interest rates would bring our whole economy to standstill, we need to eradicate our national debt now!" That argument involves a
false dichotomy Feedback: The correct answer is B. The fallacy of presenting a false dichotomy occurs when one falsely claims that there is only one alternative to one's conclusion, which is much, much worse or more absurd. In this case, the argument assumes that there is only one alternative to eradicating debt right now, which would bring our economy to a standstill. However, the argument also admits that there is a period of twelve months, in which debt could be lowered. So it is not the case that, unless the debt is lowered now, the economy will be brought to a standstill.
Which of the following expressions is vague?
heap Feedback: The correct answer is E. Because there is no sharp boundary between things that are heaps and things that are not heaps, the term "heap" is vague. To see why the term "heap" is vague, just imagine a series of sand piles, the first of which only has a couple of grains, and each subsequent member of which has a few more than the last. At the beginning of the series, the piles are definitely not heaps. At some later point in the series, however, there are piles, which definitely are heaps. Yet there is no sharp, precise boundary between the heaps and the non-heaps. Between the items that are definitely heaps and the items that are definitely not, there are many borderline cases. For this reason, the term "heap" is vague. The terms "division," "285784," "distance," and "electric current" are not vague. The word "division" is ambiguous, in that it can refer to a mathematical operation or a difference, but it is not vague. Either an operation is an instance of mathematical division or it is not. Likewise, either there is a difference or there is not. Similarly, either a given number is 285784, or else it is not. A number can not be a borderline case of 285784; there are not numbers, which are 285784 to various degrees. Distance and electric current, likewise, are non-vague concepts. There are, of course, various amounts of electric current that a body can carry, and also various distances, some greater than others. These facts, however, do not mean that the concepts of electric current or distance are vague. From the fact that there are different amounts of electrical current, in other words, does not mean that something can be electrical current to different degrees. Either a thing is electrical current, or it isn't.
Which of the following expressions is vague?
hill The correct answer is E. Because there is no sharp boundary between things that are hills and things that are not hills, the term "hill" is vague. To see why the term "hill" is vague, just imagine a series of lumps on the ground, the first of which is very small, and each subsequent member of which is slightly larger than the last. At the beginning of the series, the lumps are definitely not hills. At some later point in the series, however, there are lumps, which definitely are hills. Yet there is no sharp, precise boundary between the hills and the non-hills. Between the items that are definitely hills and the items that are definitely not, there are many borderline cases. For this reason, the term "hill" is vague. The terms "33," "=," "acceleration," and "mass" are not vague. Either a given number is 33, or else it is not. A number can not be a borderline case of 33; there are not numbers, which are 33 to various degrees. Likewise for mathematical equality. Either a pair of terms are equal, or else they are not. There is no such thing as varying degrees of mathematical equality. Acceleration and mass, likewise, are non-vague concepts. There are, of course, various amounts of mass that a body can have, and also various rates of acceleration, but these facts do not mean that the concepts of mass and acceleration are themselves vague. From the fact that there are different amounts of mass, in other words, does not mean that something can have mass to different degrees. Either a thing has mass, or it doesn't. Having mass is an all-or-nothing affair. The question of how much mass one has, in other words, is different from the question of whether one has mass at all.
An ad hominem argument
is an argument that criticizes what a person says by criticizing the person who says it. Feedback: The correct answer is B. An ad hominem argument begins with an assumption about some person or persons, and then, from that assumption, concludes that an argument offered by that person is faulty. We saw three ways for an ad hominem to do this, and so there are three kinds of ad hominem arguments. If the ad hominem is a denier, then it will state that the person's argument has a false conclusion. If the ad hominem is a silencer, then it will deny the person has the right or the permission to offer her argument. Finally, if the ad hominem is a dismisser, then it will deny that the person is sufficiently justified or sufficiently reliable for her argument to be accepted.
An appeal to authority
is an argument that supports what a person says by citing good properties of the person who says it.Feedback: The correct answer is C. An appeal to authority begins with an assumption about some person or persons, and then, from that assumption, concludes that the argument offered by that person is particularly good in some way. We saw three ways for an appeal to authority to do this, and so there are three kinds of appeals to authority. If the appeal to authority is an asserter, then it will state that the person's argument has a true conclusion. If the appeal to authority is a amplifier, then it will state the person has a special right or permission to offer her argument. Finally, if the appeal to authority is a supporter, then it will claim that the person is particularly well-justified or reliable in making her argument.
A reductio ad absurdum
is an argument that tries to refute a position by showing that it implies something that is obviously false. Feedback: The correct answer is D. To offer a reductio to an argument is to present a case, which is thoroughly obvious and uncontroversial, which shows that the argument's conclusion is false. Pointing out that things move all the time, for instance, is a sufficient reductio to Zeno's paradox about motion.
An expression is vague if
it has no precise definition. Feedback: The correct answer is B. An expression is vague exactly when it lacks a precise meaning. A vague expression, in other words, is one without a sharp boundary between cases in which it applies and cases in which it does not apply. Some standard examples of vague terms are "bald," "tall," and "heap."
An expression is ambiguous if
it has two or more distinct meanings. Feedback: The correct answer is A. An ambiguous expression is one, which has more than one distinct meaning. If the expression has multiple meanings because a single word has multiple meanings, then the ambiguity is semantic. If the expression, however, has multiple meanings because a larger phrase or clause has multiple meanings, then the ambiguity is syntactic.
An expression is ambiguous if
it has two or more distinct meanings. Feedback: The correct answer is A. An ambiguous expression is one, which has more than one distinct meaning. If the expression has multiple meanings because a single word has multiple meanings, then the ambiguity is semantic. If the expression, however, has multiple meanings because a larger phrase or clause has multiple meanings, then the ambiguity is syntactic.
An expression is ambiguous if
it has two or more distinct meanings.The correct answer is A. An ad hominem argument begins with an assumption about some person or persons, and then, from that assumption, concludes that an argument offered by that person is faulty. We saw three ways for an ad hominem to do this, and so there are three kinds of ad hominem arguments. If the ad hominem is a denier, then it will state that the person's argument has a false conclusion. If the ad hominem is a silencer, then it will deny the person has the right or the permission to offer her argument. Finally, if the ad hominem is a dismisser, then it will deny that the person is sufficiently justified or sufficiently reliable for her argument to be accepted.
To refute an argument is to show that
it is unsuccessful The correct answer is B. To refute an argument is to show that it does not successfully accomplish its aims. This is different from showing that an argument is unsound. For an argument can be sound even though it fails to be successful. A circular argument, for instance, is sound, because the conclusion is one of the premises. However, although circular arguments are sound, they are nonetheless unsuccessful in meeting their aims as arguments. They are fallacious. To refute an argument is to show that the argument is unsuccessful.
An argument is circular if
its conclusion is among its premises. Feedback: The correct answer is B. Circular arguments include their conclusions in their premises. Because one has to accept the conclusion of a circular argument in order to accept the premises, this means that circular arguments are also question-begging arguments. The converse, however, is not true. All circular arguments are question-begging, but not all question-begging arguments are circular.
An argument is circular if
its conclusion is among its premises. Feedback: The correct answer is B. Circular arguments include their conclusions in their premises. Because one has to accept the conclusion of a circular argument in order to accept the premises, this means that circular arguments are also question-begging arguments. The converse, however, is not true. All circular arguments are question-begging, but not all question-begging arguments are circular.
Consider the following dialogue: Andy: Since the supply of fresh milk has diminished significantly, milk drinkers have been turning to powder. Sandy: That's impossible! People cannot turn to powder. In this exchange, Sandy
misunderstands Andy's claim because of a syntactic ambiguity in the expression "turn to powder." Feedback: The correct answer is B. The phrase "milk drinkers have been turning to powder" could mean two things. On one hand, it could mean "milk drinkers have increased their use of powdered milk." On the other hand, it could mean "milk drinkers are being physically transformed so that they are mere powder." By stating that people cannot turn to powder, Sandy takes Andy to be making the second claim. It is likely, however, that Andy is making the first claim, and not the second. So Sandy misunderstands Andy's claim because of a syntactic ambiguity in the expression "turn to powder."
An ad hominem argument is one in which
none of the above Feedback: The correct answer is E. An ad hominem argument is one, whose premises are about the person or persons who make a certain point, and whose conclusion tells against that point. We saw that there were three kinds of ad hominem arguments: deniers, which state that the given conclusion is false; silencers, which state that someone has no right, or no permission, to make the given conclusion; and dismissers, which state that someone does not have the evidence or justification to make the given conclusion.
Consider the following argument: "Fred and Sally are friends with each other. Sally and Yoshi are friends with each other. Yoshi and Dieter are friends with each other. Therefore, Fred and Dieter are friends with each other." This argument involves
none of the above Feedback: The correct answer is E. The above argument is invalid, but not for any of the reasons among (a)-(d). It is invalid because it falsely assumes that everyone must be friends with their friends' friends. Sadly, this is not so. From the fact that one of Fred's friends is Sally, that one of Sally's friends is Yoshi, and that one of Yoshi's friends is Dieter, it does not follow that one of Fred's friends is Dieter. The argument does not reason in a circle, since none of the premises are that Fred and Dieter are friends with each other. Nor does the argument commit a slippery slope fallacy, since it does not point to escalating permissions or courses of action, nor does it cite insignificant changes along a continuum to show that larger changes are equally insignificant. Nor is there an equivocation in the above argument. The argument only has three premises, each of which states that a certain individual is friends with another individual. There is no obvious syntactic or semantic ambiguity that affects whether the argument is valid. Finally, the argument does not contain an ad hominem, since it does not conclude that any person's testimony is objectionable or deficient. The argument does not conclude that anyone's testimony is false, or that anyone lacks either the evidence or the permission to properly offer testimony.
An argument begs the question when
none of the above The correct answer is E. An argument begs the question when the premises cannot be justified independently of accepting the conclusion. If, in order to find an argument's premises plausible, one has to already accept the conclusion of that argument, then the argument begs the question. Every case of circular reasoning is also a case of begging the question, since, if an argument's conclusion is among its premises, once cannot accept the premises unless one also accepts the conclusion. However, not all cases of begging the question are cases of circularity. An argument can be question-begging even when it is not circular. For this reason (b) is not the correct answer to (16).
A silencer is an argument in which
none of the above The correct answer is E. Silencer arguments are arguments, which state that a certain person does not have the right, or the permission, to offer the testimony that she offers. Despite their name, silencer arguments do not have to include premises that shush people, or tell them to be silent. Nor do they have to concern the topic of silence in any way.
Consider the following dialogue: Felix: We need to be able to find the broom at all times. Oscar: Why is it so important to find the broom? Felix: So that we can always tidy up the house. Oscar: Why is it so important that we can always tidy up the house? Felix: So that we can always find the broom. In this dialogue, Felix is
reasoning in a circle Feedback: The correct answer is D. Because Felix recommends being able to always find the broom, and she recommends it on the basis of being able to always tidy the house; and because she recommends being able to always tidy the house, moreover, on the basis of being able to always find the broom, Felix is engaged in circular reasoning. Among the reasons she provides for being able to always find the broom, she includes that it allows them to always tidy the house. She also includes the justification for always being able to tidy the house, which is being able to always find the broom. So, among the premises for the argument, whose conclusion is that we should always be able to find the broom, is that we should always be able to find the broom.
Consider the following dialogue: Walter: There's a counterexample to every generalization! Ram: Either what you just said is true or it's false. If it's true, then there is a counterexample to every generalization, including that very generalization itself—and so it's false. In this dialogue, Ram's argument is an example of
refutation by counterexample. Feedback: The correct answer is D. To refute an argument by counterexample is to produce an example, which goes against a general statement in the premises or conclusion. Here, Walter's general statement is that every generalization has a counterexample. To provide a counterexample to that generalization, one needs to find a generalization with no counterexamples. If what Walter says is true, however, then there is indeed a generalization with no counterexamples, which is the very claim that every generalization has a counterexample. So Ram provides a counterexample to Walter's claim.
Consider the following dialogue: Henry: Guns are not responsible for suffering, so guns should not be outlawed. James: That's silly! It's like arguing that heroin is not responsible for suffering, so heroin should not be outlawed. James's reply to Henry is an example of
refutation by parallel reasoning The correct answer is C. To refute an argument with parallel reasoning, one needs to show that the logical form of the argument is invalid, and to do so, moreover, by producing an obviously invalid argument that has the same logical form. In the above argument, James constructs an argument, which appears to have the same structure as Henry's, but which appears invalid. From the fact that heroin is not responsible for suffering, it does not follow that heroin should not be outlawed. It could be that heroin should be outlawed, even if it only causes suffering when people use it in certain ways. Likewise, if Henry's reasoning is indeed parallel to James', we should conclude that, from the fact that guns are not responsible for suffering, it does not follow that guns should not be outlawed.
Consider the following dialogue: Argle: You shouldn't walk on the grass, because if everybody did that, the grass would die from trampling. Bargle: That's just like arguing that I shouldn't go to the theater now, because if everyone did that, the theater would be packed so tightly that people would suffocate. In this exchange, Bargle is attempting to
refute Argle's reasoning by parallel reasoning. Feedback: The correct answer is D. Bargle is attempting to refute Argle by constructing an invalid argument, which has the same logical form as Argle's argument. So what Bargle is attempting to do is refute Argle's reasoning by parallel reasoning. If Bargle incorrectly represents the form of Argle's argument, then Bargle has only refuted a straw man. However, because the form of Bargle's argument does indeed look similar to Argle's, and because it is improper and unlikely for anyone to attempt to refute a straw man anyway, it would not be correct to say that Bargle is attempting to refute a straw man.
Consider the following dialogue: Mike: The state needs to make companies pay for the degradation that they cause to our natural environment. Ike: That's ridiculous! It's like arguing that the state needs to make unpleasant people pay for the degradation that they cause to our social environment. In this dialogue, Ike is trying to
refute Mike's argument by parallel reasoning. Feedback: The correct answer is C. To refute an argument with parallel reasoning, one needs to show that the logical form of the argument is invalid, and to do so, moreover, by producing an invalid argument that has the same logical form. In the above argument, Ike attempts to construct an argument, which appears to have the same structure as Mike's, but which is obviously invalid. He argues that, just as there is no need for the state to punish unpleasant people, who degrade the social environment, so is there no need for the state to punish companies, who degrade the natural environment. If Ike's reasoning is indeed parallel to Mike's, then Mike would have to agree that Ike's parallel argument is valid, too.
Consider the following dialogue: Akey: Those who have been enlightened recognize that the purpose of our life is to carry out Zeus's orders, as laid down in this ancient document. Brakey: Why should I believe that? Why shouldn't I live my life in the way that seems most right to me, and never mind what your ancient document says? Akey: Your questions reveal that you have not been enlightened! In this dialogue, Akey's view cannot possibly be
refuted Feedback: The correct answer is D. Akey's argumentative strategy is to treat all disagreement and criticism as a sign of being unenlightened. Since one can dismiss the testimony and arguments of the unenlightened, Akey's argumentative strategy amounts to dismissing all those who disagree, regardless of their reasons. Akey's view, therefore, cannot possibly be refuted, and ti commits the fallacy of self-sealing.
Consider the following dialogue: Fran: If you give your child a certain amount of cash each week, then your child will never learn what it's like to cope with deprivation, and so she will not be prepared for the financial adversities that might arise in her life. So you should not give your child cash each week. Stan: That's like arguing that if you give your child love and attention each week, then she will never learn what it's like to cope with neglect and abuse, and so she will not be prepared for the interpersonal adversities that might arise in her life. So you should not give your child love and attention each week. In this dialogue, Stan is
refuting Fran's argument by parallel reasoning The correct answer is B. To refute an argument with parallel reasoning, one needs to show that the logical form of the argument is invalid, and to do so, moreover, by producing an obviously invalid argument that has the same logical form. In the above argument, Stan constructs an argument, which appears to have the same structure as Fran's, but which is obviously invalid. From the fact that a child might not be able to cope with neglect and abuse, it does not follow that one should not give the child love and attention each week. Likewise, if Stan's reasoning is indeed parallel to Frans, we should conclude that, from the fact that a child might not be able to cope with deprivation, it does not follow that one should not give the child a certain amount of cash each week.
Consider the following dialogue: Fred: On average, Americans do not live as long as Greeks. Ted: That's ridiculous! My American uncle lived twenty years longer than my Greek uncle did! In this exchange, Ted is
refuting a straw man Feedback: The correct answer is A. To refute a straw man is to attack a view, while falsely attributing it to your opponent. To refute a straw man, in other words, is to misrepresent your opponent's position, while claiming to have a refutation for it. In the above argument, Ted responds to Fred by refuting a straw man. Fred claims that, on average, Americans do not live as long as Greeks. Ted, however, uses the example of his uncles to refute the claim that no American lives as long as any Greek. Ted then takes himself to have refuted Fred. However, Ted has not refuted Fred. Fred never said that every Greek lives longer than every American, or that no American lives as long as any Greek. Fred merely made a claim about average longevity, which is compatible with the lives of Ted's uncles.
A reductio ad absurdum is an attempt to
show that an argument is unsuccessful by showing that it entails something obviously false. Feedback: The correct answer is B. To offer a reductio to an argument is to present a case, which is thoroughly obvious and uncontroversial, which shows that the argument's conclusion is false. Pointing out that things move all the time, for instance, is a sufficient reductio to Zeno's paradox about motion.
To refute an argument is to
show that it is no successful Feedback: The correct answer is C. To refute an argument is to show that it does not successfully accomplish its aims. This is different from showing that an argument is unsound. For an argument can be sound even though it fails to be successful. A circular argument, for instance, is sound, because the conclusion is one of the premises. However, although circular arguments are sound, they are nonetheless unsuccessful in meeting their aims as arguments. They are fallacious. To refute an argument is to show that the argument is unsuccessful.
To refute an argument by parallel reasoning is to
show that the form of the argument is invalid, by producing another invalid argument of the same form. Feedback: The correct answer is D. To refute an argument with parallel reasoning, one needs to show that the logical form of the argument is invalid, and to do so, moreover, by producing an obviously invalid argument that has the same logical form.
Consider the following argument: "Look at this series of 100 colors. If you cannot see the difference between any particular color in this series and the color that comes right after it, then there cannot be any visible difference between the first color in this series and the last." This argument is a
slippery slope fallacy Feedback: The correct answer is A. A slippery slope argument is one that cites miniscule, insignificant changes along a continuum, and which claims that, if any one such change is made, then further, more radical changes along the same continuum would be equally insignificant. The above argument about colors is a slippery slope argument. It begins with the assumption that there is no significant visual difference between any two adjacent colors on a chart, and it concludes that there is no significant visual difference between any two colors anywhere .
A reductio ad absurdum is an argument that
some claim leads to an absurd conclusion. Feedback: The correct answer is A. To offer a reductio is to show that an argument leads to an absurd conclusion. What makes the conclusion absurd, moreover, is that it can be immediately falsified by a case, which is thoroughly obvious and uncontroversial. Pointing out that things move all the time, for instance, is a sufficient reductio to Zeno's paradox about motion.
Consider the headline: "Police squad helps dog bite victim." This headline is an example of
syntactic ambiguity Feedback: The correct answer is C. The sentence "police squad helps dog bite victim" could mean two different things. On one hand, it could mean that a police squad is helping the victim of a dog bite. On the other hand, it could mean that a police squad is assisting a dog, who is biting a victim. Since this ambiguity is not due to the ambiguity of a single term, like "dog," "bite," or "police," the ambiguity is syntactic rather than semantic.
An argument is circular if
the conclusion is one of the premises Feedback: The correct answer is C. Circular arguments include their conclusions in their premises. Because one has to accept the conclusion of a circular argument in order to accept the premises, this means that circular arguments are also question-begging arguments. The converse, however, is not true. All circular arguments are question-begging, but not all question-begging arguments are circular.
An argument is circular if
the conclusion is one of the premises. Feedback: The correct answer is C. Circular arguments include their conclusions in their premises. Because one has to accept the conclusion of a circular argument in order to accept the premises, this means that circular arguments are also question-begging arguments. The converse, however, is not true. All circular arguments are question-begging, but not all question-begging arguments are circular.
An affirmer is an argument in which the premises are about the person making a point, and the conclusion is that
the premises are about the person making a point, and the conclusion is that the point that they are making is true. Feedback: The correct answer is F. An affirmer argument is an argument from authority, which begins with a claim about a person, and which states that the person's conclusion is true. Affirmer arguments do not state that the person is particularly reliable, or that the person has a special right to offer her argument. Affirmers merely state that the conclusion in question is true.
Consider the following argument: "Atheists are wrong, because God says so." This argument is an example of a(n)
the fallacy of begging the question Feedback: The correct answer is E. An argument begs the question when the premises' justification requires accepting the conclusion. Here the premise is that God says atheists are wrong, and the conclusion is that atheists are wrong. In order to accept the premise, one has to accept that there is such a being as God, who says that atheists are wrong. To accept such a being as God, however, is already to accept that atheism is wrong. One cannot believe that God says things while at the same time accepting atheism, in other words. So the argument in (11) has a premise, whose acceptance requires one to already believe the argument's conclusion. For this reason, the argument in (11) is question-begging.
An ad hominem argument is one in which the premises are about
the person making a point and the conclusion tells against their making that point. Feedback: The correct answer is A. An ad hominem argument is one, whose premises are about the person or persons who make a certain point, and whose conclusion tells against that point. We saw that there were three kinds of ad hominem arguments: deniers, which state that the given conclusion is false; silencers, which state that someone has no right, or no permission, to make the given conclusion; and dismissers, which state that someone does not have the evidence or justification to make the given conclusion.
An appeal to authority occurs when the premises are about
the person making a point and the conclusion tells in favor of their making that point. The correct answer is B. An appeal to authority is an argument, which supports an argument's conclusion on the basis of something about the person making the argument. We have seen three different kinds of arguments from authority: affirmers, which state that the given conclusion is true; amplifiers, which state that someone has a special right, or special permission, to make the given conclusion; and supporters, which state that someone does has particularly good evidence or justification to make the given conclusion.
An affirmer is an argument in which the premises are about the person making a point, and the conclusion is that
the point that they are making is true. The correct answer is F. As its name suggests, an affirmer ad hominem argument is one, which begins with an assumption about a person, and which concludes that the person's testimony is true . A denier argument does not necessarily state that the person's testimony is reliable or justified. Nor does a denier argument claim that the person has a special right to make her testimony. All that a denier argument says is that, because of who the person is, her testimony is true.
An affirmer is an argument in which the premises are about the person making a point, and the conclusion is that
the point that they are making is true. The correct answer is F. As its name suggests, an affirmer ad hominem argument is one, which begins with an assumption about a person, and which concludes that the person's testimony is true . A denier argument does not necessarily state that the person's testimony is reliable or justified. Nor does a denier argument claim that the person has a special right to make her testimony. All that a denier argument says is that, because of who the person is, her testimony is true.
A denier is an argument in which the premises are about the person making a point, and the conclusion is that
the point they are making is false. Feedback: The correct answer is C. A denier argument is one, which begins with some observation about a person, and which concludes that the person's conclusion is false. A denier argument does not conclude that the person in question is unjustified, or that the person has no right to argue for her conclusion. A denier argument merely holds that a certain conclusion is false, and it does so on the basis of something about the person who draws that conclusion.
An appeal to authority occurs when
the premises are about the person making a point and the conclusion says something favorable about that person. Feedback: The correct answer is B. An appeal to authority is an argument, which supports an argument's conclusion on the basis of something about the person making the argument. We have seen three different kinds of arguments from authority: affirmers, which state that the given conclusion is true; amplifiers, which state that someone has a special right, or special permission, to make the given conclusion; and supporters, which state that someone does has particularly good evidence or justification to make the given conclusion.
A denier is an argument in which the premises are about the person making a point, and the conclusion is that
the premises are about the person making a point, and the conclusion is that the point that they are making is false. The correct answer is C. A denier argument is one, which begins with some observation about a person, and which concludes that the person's conclusion is false. A denier argument does not conclude that the person in question is unjustified, or that the person has no right to argue for her conclusion. A denier argument merely holds that a certain conclusion is false, and it does so on the basis of something about the person who draws that conclusion.
An ad hominem argument is one in which
the premises are about the vagueness of a point being made a person and the conclusion tells against the person. Feedback: The correct answer is C. An ad hominem argument is one, whose premises are about the person or persons who make a certain point, and whose conclusion tells against that point. We saw that there were three kinds of ad hominem arguments: deniers, which state that the given conclusion is false; silencers, which state that someone has no right, or no permission, to make the given conclusion; and dismissers, which state that someone does not have the evidence or justification to make the given conclusion.
An expression is vague if
there is no precise boundary between the cases in which it applies and the cases in which it does not apply. Feedback: The correct answer is B. An expression is vague exactly when it lacks a precise meaning. A vague expression, in other words, is one without a sharp boundary between cases in which it applies and cases in which it does not apply. Some standard examples of vague terms are "bald," "tall," and "heap."
An expression is vague if
there is not a precise boundary between the cases in which it applies and the cases in which it does not apply. The correct answer is B. An expression is vague exactly when it lacks a precise meaning. A vague expression, in other words, is one without a sharp boundary between cases in which it applies and cases in which it does not apply. Some standard examples of vague terms are "bald," "tall," and "heap."
An amplifier is an argument in which the premises are about the person making a point, and the conclusion is that
they are especially entitled to make that point in the context in which they did, so you should pay special attention to them. Feedback: The correct answer is D. An amplifier argument is one, which states that someone has a special right, or special permission, to make the argument that they are making. If one points to the fact that Ulrich is the assigned umpire for a baseball game, for instance, and if one also points out that assigned umpires have a special right to offer opinions about the game, then, by concluding that Ulrich's testimony is good, one makes an amplifier argument from Ulrich's authority.
An amplifier is an argument in which the premises are about the person making a point, and the conclusion is that
they are especially entitled to make that point in the context in which they did, so you should pay special attention to them. The correct answer is D. An amplifier argument is one, which states that someone has a special right, or special permission, to make the argument that they are making. If one points to the fact that Ulrich is the assigned umpire for a baseball game, for instance, and if one also points out that assigned umpires have a special right to offer opinions about the game, then, by concluding that Ulrich's testimony is good, one makes an amplifier argument from Ulrich's authority.
A silencer is an argument in which the premises are about the person making a point, and the conclusion is that
they are not entitled to make that point in the context in which they did, so you should not listen to them. Feedback: The correct answer is A. Silencer arguments are arguments, which state that a certain person does not have the right, or the permission, to offer the testimony that she offers
A dismisser is an argument in which the premises are about the person making a point, and the conclusion is that
they did not have enough evidence to make that point in the context in which they did, so you should not believe them. Feedback: The correct answer is B. A dismisser argument begins with an observation about a person, and concludes that such a person is unjustified or unreliable in her arguments. It does not conclude that the person's conclusion is false, exactly. Nor does it conclude that the person has no right to argue. What it states is that, although there may be some chance that the person is right, the person is nonetheless unreliable or unjustified in what she argues.
A dismisser is an argument in which the premises are about the person making a point, and the conclusion is that
they did not have enough evidence to make that point in the context in which they did, so you should not believe them. Feedback: The correct answer is B. A dismisser argument begins with an observation about a person, and concludes that such a person is unjustified or unreliable in her arguments. It does not conclude that the person's conclusion is false, exactly. Nor does it conclude that the person has no right to argue. What it states is that, although there may be some chance that the person is right, the person is nonetheless unreliable or unjustified in what she argues.
A supporter is an argument in which the premises are about the person making a point, and the conclusion is that
they have more than enough evidence to make that point in the context in which they did, so you should be very confident that they are right. The correct answer is E. A supporter argument begins with a statement about a person, and concludes that the person has particularly good evidence for her argument, or is particularly reliable in her arguments. Supporter arguments do not simply say that a person's conclusion is true. Nor do they say that the person in question has a special right, or a special permission to argue. Rather, a supporter argument says that someone is particularly well-justified in making her argument.
A supporter is an argument in which the premises are about the person making a point, and the conclusion is that
they have more than enough evidence to make that point in the context in which they did, so you should be very confident that they are right. Feedback: The correct answer is E. A supporter argument from authority argument is one, which begins with an assumption about a person, and which concludes that the person is especially reliable or especially justified in offering her testimony.
A supporter is an argument in which the premises are about the person making a point, and the conclusion is that
they have more than enough evidence to make that point in the context in which they did, so you should be very confident that they are right. The correct answer is E. A supporter argument from authority argument is one, which begins with an assumption about a person, and which concludes that the person is especially reliable or especially justified in offering her testimony.
A reductio ad absurdum is an attempt to show that the argument is
unsuccessful by showing that its conclusion is obviously false Feedback: The correct answer is B. To offer a reductio to an argument is to present a case, which is thoroughly obvious and uncontroversial, which shows that the argument's conclusion is false. Pointing out that things move all the time, for instance, is a sufficient reductio to Zeno's paradox about motion.
To refute an argument is to show that the argument is
unsuccessful in meeting its aims Feedback: The correct answer is E. To refute an argument is to show that it does not successfully accomplish its aims. This is different from showing that an argument is unsound. For sometimes, an argument can be sound even though it fails to accomplish its aims. A circular argument, for instance, is sound, because the conclusion is one of the premises. However, although circular arguments are sound, they are nonetheless unsuccessful in meeting their aims as arguments. They are fallacious. To refute an argument is to show that the argument does not accomplish its aims.
To refute a straw man is to argue against a view that
you do not accurately understand or represent. The correct answer is A. To refute a straw man is to misrepresent an opponent's position while attempting to refute it. In other words, it is to refute a position, which one falsely claims to be held by an opponent.
An argument begs the question when
you have no reason to believe the premises unless you already have a reason to believe the conclusion. Feedback: The correct answer is B. An argument begs the question when the premises cannot be justified independently of accepting the conclusion. If, in order to find an argument's premises plausible, one has to already accept the conclusion of that argument, then the argument begs the question.
