Naoka Tsujimoto

Critical Thinking Skills

Final Examination

Professor Greenfield

May 13, 2009

Part I: Terms, Concepts, Definitions and Issues

A.

1) What is a statement? A statement is an opinionated assertion that is offered to support a conclusion in an argument.

2) What is an argument? An argument is a collection of sentences where premises or evidentiary statements are provided in hopes of proving a conclusion.

3) What is warranting? Warranting is assurance that a statement is valid or at the very least, the argument is acceptable based on the evidence supplied.

4) What is a factual statement? A factual statement is a sentence offered to help solidify the validity of an argument, for a statement to be factual it must be generally accepted as true and not be open to further debate.

5) What is a fallacy? A fallacy is a poorly presented argument where the premises, conclusion or both were not warranted and therefore could not be generally accepted to be true.

B. Logical warranting provides acceptable premises for an argument so that one may accept that the following conclusion to be true based upon facts. Empirical warranting assumes an argument to be true out of necessity. Something that may be too complex to break down so one assumes truth based upon emotion.

C. Induction is a human defense mechanism that assumes truth based upon patterns from past or present experiences. Although induction does not guarantee an argument to be true all of the time, out of necessity people choose to believe something is true because the mind cannot survive in complete chaos.

D. The two main types of arguments are deductive and inductive. Deductive is to come to a conclusion based upon evidence provided. Inductive is the assumption of truth based on experience. They are similar in the sense that both forms must be warranted to be able to be considered an argument, yet they are opposites in the manner in which conclusions are reached.

E.

1) Sound: For an argument to be considered sound, it must fully satisfy the curiosity of the listener. Proof must be provided so that the argument becomes difficult to deny.

2) Cogent: A cogent argument is believed because the premises offered are both factual and relevant to the argument.

3) Validity: Validity is the state of an argument having a conclusion that is accepted as factual because the premises are accepted as factual.

4) Evidence: Evidence is the offering of statements that provides proof of something to be factual.

5) Inference: An inference is a conclusion one can draw based upon statements being offered as evidence.

F. A good argument is generally accepted to be true, by those, to whom it is being presented. Good arguments provide a conclusive statement that is backed up with supporting statements.

Part II: Recognition, identification and formulation of arguments.

A. Indicate whether it contains an argument. If it does, identify the conclusion and premises, put the argument in standard form.

Conclusion: “We should act now to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon-grade material from falling into the wrong hands.

Premise: The worst calamity that will befall the world in the next twenty years will be the use of small nuclear weapons by terrorists or rogue states.

Premise 2: The death toll from such a state of affairs is likely to be higher than that of any other kind of human devastation.

This is not an argument. Although there is a collection of opinionated statements, there is neither a stated conclusion nor one that may be inferred from the statements provided.

Conclusion: “Sexiest Man/Woman Alive” spreads in celebrity magazines are completely faulty.

Premise: One can find even “sexier” people walking down a main street in any nation’s capital.

Conclusion: The tale of Noah’s arc is fraud or fantasy.

Premise: If there were truly two animals of every species collected, the amount of feces alone would fill up one hundred arcs.

Premise 2: Clearing the ship of the waste would have taken many laborers two years on a twenty-four hour schedule to maintain the arc.

There is no argument presented here.

Conclusion: There is no justice in the world.

Premise: Amelia Earhart’s airplane went down fifty years ago and no traces have been found.

Premise 2: Yasser Arafat’s plane went down and was rescued within minutes.

Conclusion: Our intervention is necessary for all of the present turmoil that’s been taking place in the Middle East.

Premise: America is the most intelligent and developed country in the world.

Premise 2: Americans owe other less-developed nations the right to peace through our resources.

Conclusion: “Any war conducted to secure freedom for any of us is justified.”

Premise: Freedom is necessary to lead a good life.

Premise 2: Every human is entitled to live a good life.

Premise 3: Everything humans have a right to should be acquired by any means necessary.

B. Indicate whether the passage contains an argument. If it does, put it in standard form, specify how the conclusion follows from the premises and then identify the pattern of the argument.

P1: The primary goal of sentencing guidelines was to reduce the disparity among criminals who committed the same crime.

P2: By equalizing only prison sentences, the guidelines make it impossible for judges to equalize a “total penalty.”

Conclusion: Sentencing reforms have produced some perverse results.

P1: Affirmative action creates diverse student populations.

P2: Affirmative action provides the opportunity for minority populations to succeed in the United States. (Achieve the American dream.)

Conclusion: Affirmative action has been good for the country.

MODUS TOLLENS

P1: If the U.S. attacks Syria, the U.S. will lose the support of every nation in the world.

P2: The U.S. will not attack Syria.

Conclusion: Therefore, the U.S. will not lose the support of world nations.

MODUS PONENS

P1: No one is going to support the (British) Prime Minister if he backs the U.S. again in war.

P2: It seems that the prime minister is going to support the American war effort.

Conclusion: Thus, no one will support him.

P1: For years the grass would not grow, no matter how much water or fertilizing she did.

P2: After adding Miracle Sprout the grass started to grow.

Conclusion: Miracle sprout did the trick.

P1: Food supports life and only contributes to obesity when it is overused.

P2: You will become overweight if you over indulge on calories no matter where they come from.

Conclusion: Banzhaf’s stance on the harmful quality of food is ludicrous.

P1: The flag represents freedom; freedom does not represent the flag.

P2: Americans are given the freedom of speech/expression.

Conclusion: Flag burning is a form of expression that is protected by the right to free speech in the constitution.

P1: The flag is special.

P2: The flag holds such a special meaning because of the soldiers who died in the name of the flag.

Conclusion: Flag burning is unpatriotic and not a form of expression protected by the constitution.

P1: If God is for us, no one can be against us.

P2: If God is against us, we will only experience defeat.

P3: We only see defeat.

Conclusion: God is against us.

P1: Four well-controlled scientific studies of nearly three thousand people have proven the effects of Vitamin X.

C: Vitamin X can lower blood pressure in middle-aged adults.

P1: Franklin is either evil or crazy.

P2: Franklin is not crazy.

C: Therefore, Franklin is evil.

P1: If Julio does not pay hs bills he will be bankrupt.

P2: He will pay his bills.

C: Therefore he will not be bankrupt.

Part III: Critical analysis and evaluation of arguments.

A. Determine whether the following passages are good or bad inductive or deductive arguments.

This is an example of a successful deductive argument. The argument is in the standard If P, then Q format. If Anne is in town, then she is staying at the Barbary Hotel. The conditional statement there is informing us of two options: Anne is not in town and is therefore not staying at the Barbary hotel or Anne is in town and is therefore staying at the Barbary Hotel. Since the first premise states Anne would be staying at the Barbary if she was in town, and the second premise confirms Anne’s presence in town, then we can accept that Anne is staying in the Barbary Hotel.

Three: Explanatory argument. The conclusion is causal and the premise just offer reasons to explain what was already assumed to be true.

This would be considered a poor deductive argument. The premises presented are fallacious, appealing to ignorance. Although the argument is supported by logical warranting, the premises are not warranted empirically.

The writer is giving an example of a poor inductive argument. The premises provided generalize the American media, attributing certain opinions or practices to the group as a whole or a majority. This leads one to believe that the conclusion, the dishonest character of American media is likely, but not definite because the premises do not provide empirical warranting for the argument. There is a lack of logical warranting in the statements provided.

The premises that state current day Christians use violent protest as a medium to combat their pro-life view is a logical fallacy and therefore makes the argument weaker. The premises are likely to be open for questioning or debate and while the premise offered logically warrants the conclusion, it does not empirically warrant it. The premise implies that current day Christians are hypocrites for their violent pro-choice protests, if the premise that all current day Christians protest violently against abortion, then the conclusion that current day Christians are hypocrites would have to be true, making this a deductive argument.

The conclusion presented states slot machines should be installed in government buildings. It is supported by the premises that gambling revenues would be beneficial to the city, but operating a large scale casino would be too expensive to begin. This is a deductive argument, because if both premises are true, then one would have to assume that the conclusion is also true. The warranting in this argument is both empirical and logical, fulfilling the criteria of a good argument.

This is an example of a poor inductive argument. The best time for a loan is contingent the performance of the banking industry in the near future. The premises are logical, if the banking industry were to improve in the next few months and banks became more lenient, then waiting to apply for a loan might indeed be a better decision. Yet one can still question whether the banking industry will actually improve within the next few months, or if the banks will become more strict because of its experience with the recession.

Part IV: Construction of good arguments.

Rational thinking is better than non-rational thinking because of its relation to human life. Rational thinking alleviates the natural human anxiety that follows uncertainty; rationality best equips humans for a happy life.

Human nature dictates that we as beings have plans for future; it also states we are innately social, so many plans or life choices are made with the consideration of others in mind. Rational thinking allows humans to take past experiences and identify a pattern that would reduce the amount of distress on the human psyche.

If humans can establish an open dialogue within themselves when formulating plans, as well as a working dialogue with their peers, then they may successfully exchange their own experiences that may build an archive of evidence to support the choices made to continue with life.