Study Guides (248,518)
Canada (121,606)
Marketing (517)
MKT 100 (260)

214smpltst2ANS.docx

6 Pages
210 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Marketing
Course
MKT 100
Professor
Jennifer Fraser
Semester
Winter

Description
PHL 214 SAMPLE TEST 2 ANSWERS A) True or False? 1. All sound arguments are valid. T 2. An inductively strong argument may be deductively invalid. T 3. An argument that affirms the consequent is invalid. T 4. Arguments are deductive when they are intended to be valid. T 5. The following argument is invalid: “Roses are red, and daffodils are yellow, and lilies are white. Therefore, flowers are probably coloured.” T 6. The genetic fallacy is a kind of red herring. T 7. In a straw man fallacy, the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. T B) Multiple Choice 1. An argument: “Sally is a mathematician. If she’s a mathematician, she’s bad at art. So she must be bad at art.” The argument (a) affirms the consequent (b) denies the consequent (c) affirms the antecedent [In the premise “If she’s a mathematician, she’s bad at art”, the antecedent is “Sally is a mathematician”] (d) does none of these things. 2. An argument: “Either you’re Japanese or you’re Catholic, and seeing as you’re clearly not Japanese you must be Catholic.” The argument is (a) a hypothetical syllogism (b) a false dilemma (c) a disjunctive syllogism (d) an instance of denying the consequent (e) both b and c [The disjunctive premise “Either you’re Japanese or you’re Catholic” is obviously untrue; there are all kinds of other possibilities, so it’s a false dilemma. But it has the form of a disjunctive syllogism (and is therefore valid).] (f) a, b and c (g) None of the above 3. In any hypothetical syllogism, the conclusion and the premises are all (a) true (b) valid (c) both valid and sound (d) conditional statements [The form of the argument is “If A then B; If B then C; therefore, if A then C”.] (e) “or” statements (f) statements that cannot be known to be true, but which appear to be reasonable hypotheses 4. An argument: “If you’re human you’re Canadian. You are Canadian, so you must be human.” The argument is (a) invalid (b) valid (c) an instance of affirming the consequent [The argument affirms the antecedent (i.e., the statement that you’re Canadian) and so it’s invalid. So I should have had “a and c” as a possible answer here.] (d) an instance of affirming the antecedent (e) None of the above 5. If two premises are “independent”, that means that (a) each rationally supports the (same) conclusion on its own (b) each is meant by the arguer to rationally support the (same) conclusion on its own (c) each can be known to be true (or reasonable to believe) independent of the other one (d) each can be known to be true (or reasonable to believe) independent of sensory experience (e) each is intended to be known to be true (or reasonable to believe) independent of the other (f) None of the above 6. One difference between deductive validity and inductive strength is that (a) the conclusion of an inductively strong argument is never certain (b) the conclusion of a deductively valid argument must be true, whereas the conclusion of an inductively strong argument need only be probable (c) if an argument is deductively valid, the premises are intended to make the conclusion 100% certain (d) unlike inductive strength, deductive validity does not come in degrees [Since both c and d describe differences, either of these answers is good. Maybe I should have had “a and d” or “a or d” as a possible answer.] (e) unlike deductive validity, inductive strength has nothing to do with whether the premises of the argument are actually true (f) None of the above C) Diagrams Draw a diagram to represent the following argument in the space below: “Most people think the lunar landing was real, but in fact it was a big hoax. First of all, consider that it’s physically impossible for human beings to travel more than 100 km from the surface of the earth. (I know, because my uncle told me so.) Moreover, the only evidence we have for the lunar landing is that the American government said it happened; but they lie about everything all the time.” 1: The lunar landing was a big hoax. 2: It’s physically impossible for human beings to travel more than 100 km from the surface of the earth. 3: My uncle told me that it’s physically impossible for human beings to travel more than 100 km from the surface of the earth. 4: The only evidence we have for the lunar landing is that the American government said it happened. 5: The American government lies about everything all the time. I can’t figure out how to make a diagram on this word processor. You figure it out – a good exercise. The diagram should be as follows: Conclusion = statement 1. There are two subordinate arguments here, each meant to support 1. Here is one argument: statement 2 is a premise leading to 1, and statement 2 is itself supported by 3 (i.e., 2 is a subordinate conclusion). Another subordinate argument has two dependent premises: 4 and 5 are dependent premises leading to 1. (The claim that the only evidence comes from the government, together with the claim that the government lies all the time, is meant to support the conclusion that the lunar landing was a big hoax.) D) Identifying Fallacies For each o
More Less

Related notes for MKT 100

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit