Critical Thinking by Example - Chapter 1

Critical Thinking by Example ============================ By Mark Walker Chapter 1: Elementary Standardizing =================================== Arguments --------- This book is about arguments: what they are, how they are put together, and how to evaluate them. If you study this work carefully,...

Critical Thinking by Example ============================ By Mark Walker Chapter 1: Elementary Standardizing =================================== Arguments --------- This book is about arguments: what they are, how they are put together, and how to evaluate them. If you study this work carefully, you will get better at understanding and evaluating arguments. You will be better able to make good arguments, and defend against bad arguments. In this book, we will use the word "argument" in a very specific sense. Sometimes people use the word "argument" in ways different from what we will study in this book. For example, a couple might have a disagreement where one says, "You are a jerk", and the other says, "No, you are a jerk." We might say the couple is "arguing" or had an "argument". There is nothing wrong with using the word "argument" in this way, but these are not the sort of arguments we will study. We are interested in arguments in the sense of giving reasons to believe something. That is, arguments are attempts at persuasion using reasons. An argument (in this sense) for going to a Mexican restaurant for dinner is an attempt to persuade you with reasons to go to a Mexican restaurant. We are already in a position to note something very important about all arguments: they have two components: (i) reasons offered in support of a claim, and (ii) the claim itself. We will refer to (i) as "premises". With will refer to (ii) as conclusions. From this it follows that every argument has at least one premise and one conclusion. For example, consider this argument: +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **Example 1.0: Premise and Conclusion** | +=======================================================================+ | **Premise:** I know everyone here loves Mexican food. | | | | **Conclusion:** We should go to a Mexican restaurant for dinner. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ Suppose your friend said just this, "I know everyone here loves Mexican food". This is not an argument because there is no attempt to persuade the audience. If your friend said just, "We should go to a Mexican restaurant for dinner", there is no argument being made because there are no reasons given for this claim. It is only when the premise and the conclusion are asserted together that we have an argument. Thinking critically about arguments involves two main skills: analyzing an argument into its component parts, and assessing whether an argument is good or not. The former skill we will refer to as "standardizing arguments," the latter skill we will refer to as "evaluating arguments". This chapter focuses on the standardizing skill. Chapter Two looks at the evaluation skill. Once you have read through these two chapters and taken the practice quizzes, you will have encountered the basics of critically thinking about arguments. The rest of the book builds on these basic skills. Two Conventions for Standardizing --------------------------------- To standardize an argument is to dissect it: to break it down into its components in a manner that shows the logical relationships between the parts. As we have just noted, every argument must have two components: at least one premise and one conclusion. Standardizing involves identifying these component parts. Thus, with respect to example 1.1: **Example 1.1: A simple argument** ---------------------------------------------- John is over two meters tall, so he is tall. The conclusion is \"he is tall\", and the reason to believe the conclusion is the premise, \"John is over two meters tall\". If all arguments were as elementary as example 1.1, there would be little call to develop standardization conventions, but arguments can be quite complex, so we need to develop some notation to keep track of everything. One variant, \'standard notation\', designates reasons or premises with a \'P\' and an associated numeral, and a conclusion or conclusions with a \'C\' and an associated numeral. Thus, example 1.1 in standard notation would be presented as follows: --------------------------------------------------------- **Example 1.2: A simple argument in standard notation** --------------------------------------------------------- P1: John is over two meters tall.\ C: John is tall. --------------------------------------------------------- The premise, \'P1\', is offered in support of the conclusion, \'C\'. A second convention involves diagramming. We can insert numerals into 1.1 like so: **Example 1.3: A simple argument with numerals inserted** ----------------------------------------------------------- \[1\] John is over two meters tall, \[2\] so he is tall. The associated diagram is given in 1.4: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We read diagrams from the bottom up, with each arrow representing \'therefore\'. In other words, we read Example 1.3 as: 1, therefore 2, and substitute in the propositions for 1 and 2, that is, \[1\] John is over two meters tall, therefore \[2\] John is tall. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subpremises, Subconclusions, and Subarguments --------------------------------------------- One way that arguments get complicated is that people often make arguments where they provide reasons to believe the reasons they offer in support of their conclusion. Consider the following modification of our earlier example: +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **Example 1.5: Serial Argument** | +=======================================================================+ | \[1\] I asked everyone when they arrived, \[2\] therefore I know | | everyone here loves Mexican food. \[3\] Therefore we should go to a | | Mexican restaurant for dinner. | | | | 3 | | | | 2 | | | | 1 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ The main point the author is attempting to persuade their audience to accept is \[3\]. Note that \[2\] is the reason or premise that directly supports \[3\]. However, the author also offers a reason or premise to accept \[2\], namely \[1\]. In other words, \[1\] is offered in support of the conclusion \[2\], and \[2\] is a premise in support of \[3\]. What this tells us is that sometimes claims, like \[2\], can be both a premise and a conclusion. To keep track of this complexity, we need a bit more vocabulary. In our diagrams, the main conclusion is always at the top. One level down is the main premise level. (There is often more than one main premise, but not in our example.) Anything two levels down or more, like \[1\], is the subpremise level. What this means is that main premises always directly support main conclusions. Main premises are always one level down---never more and never less. Subpremises always directly support subconclusions. Subconclusions are always at least two levels down---sometimes three or more levels down in more complex arguments. So, in example 1.5, \[1\] is a subpremise and it directly supports the subconclusion \[2\]. \[2\] is a main premise because it directly supports the main conclusion \[3\]. So \[2\] is both a subconclusion and a main premise. Here\'s an example of a complex argument with more than three levels: +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **Example 1.51: Complex Serial Argument** | +=======================================================================+ | 5 | | | | 4 | | | | 3 | | | | 2 | | | | 1 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ 5 is a main conclusion. 4 is a main premise and a subconclusion. 3 is subpremise and a subconclusion. 2 is a subpremise and a subconclusion. 1 is a subpremise. Five Argument Types ------------------- The arguments we will discuss in this work are either one of the five types given in example 1.6, or a combination of two or more of these five argument types. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **Example 1.6: Five Argument Types** | +=======================================================================+ | +--------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | | | **Simple Argument:** A single | C | | | | premise supports a single | | | | | conclusion. | P1 | | | +================================+================================+ | | | **Serial Argument:** A premise | C | | | | set is used to support a | | | | | subconclusion. The | P1 | | | | subconclusion serves as a | | | | | premise for a further | P2 | | | | conclusion. | | | | +--------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | | | **Linked Argument:** Two or | C | | | | more premises are logically | | | | | linked and work together to | P1 P2 | | | | support a conclusion. | | | | +--------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | | | **Convergent Argument**: Two | C | | | | or more premises are logically | | | | | independent. They work | P1 P2 | | | | independently to support the | | | | | conclusion. | | | | +--------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | | | **Divergent Argument:** A | C1 C2 | | | | premise set supports two or | | | | | more conclusions. | P1 | | | +--------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ We have seen a simple argument and a serial argument above. Here are examples of the remaining three: +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **Example 1.7: Linked Argument** | +=======================================================================+ | \[1\] Lassie is a mammal, \[2\] since Lassie is a dog, \[3\] and all | | dogs are mammals. | | | | 1 | | | | 2 3 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Notice how in a linked argument the premises must work together to | | support the conclusion. \[3\] on its own does not support the | | conclusion without the knowledge that Lassie is a dog, and \[2\] does | | not support the conclusion without the knowledge that dogs are | | mammals. So, \[2\] and \[3\] need each other to provide reason to | | believe the conclusion. | | | | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | **Example 1.8: Convergent Argument** | | | +==================================================================+ | | | \[1\] Lassie is a great pet \[2\] because she is smart \[3\] and | | | | she scares away intruders. | | | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | | | 2 3 | | | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | | Notice that both \[2\] and \[3\] on their own provide some reason to | | believe the conclusion. The two independent reasons converge on the | | same conclusion. | | | | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | **Example 1.9: Divergent Argument** | | | +==================================================================+ | | | \[1\] Lassie is a dog \[2\] so she needs regular walks and \[3\] | | | | an\ | | | | occasional good brushing. | | | | | | | | 2 3 | | | | | | | | 1 | | | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ Premise \[1\] is offered in support of two distinct conclusions: \[2\] and \[3\]. 1.5 Premise and Conclusion Indicator Words ------------------------------------------ The task of standardizing requires us to "get inside the heads" of the persons making the argument. We want to figure out what point they intend to support (the conclusion), and what reasons (premises) they intend to offer. There is no infallible way of ascertaining intentions. We have all had the experience of misinterpreting others, e.g., not realizing that someone was joking. One good indicator of the authors' intentions is premise and conclusion indicators: words used to signal premises and conclusions. Here is a list of some conclusion indicators:   Therefore For all these reasons ------------------- ----------------------------------- Thus On these grounds it is clear that So Consequently Hence Proves that Then Shows that It follows that Indicates that In conclusion We can conclude that Accordingly Means that Demonstrates that Suggests that   Here is a list of premise indicator words:   Since On the grounds that -------------- ---------------------- Because For the reason that For As indicated by Follows from May be inferred from As shown by May be derived from Given that May be deduced from A word of warning: sometimes the words in these lists may be used in other ways. Consider the following two examples: **Example 1.10: The word 'since' as a premise indicator** ----------------------------------------------------------- You should go to class today since there is a quiz. **Example 1.11: The word 'since' not used as a premise indicator** -------------------------------------------------------------------- There has been no good music since the great music of the 1960s. The word 'since' is on our premise indicator list. This suggests that we might standardize 1.10 like this: This is a good reconstruction of the author's thinking. The same can't be said of the same reconstruction of 1.11: There are obvious problems with this reconstruction, including the fact that P1 is not even a complete thought. The difference in the two examples is that the word 'since' is used as a premise indicator in 1.10 but in a temporal (i.e., time) sense in 1.11. A good trick to see if words on these lists are being used as premise or conclusion indicators is to try substituting a different word from the lists. If you can do so without altering the meaning of the passage, then it probably is a premise or conclusion indicator. If not, then it is probably not a premise or conclusion indicator. Thus, in 1.10 we can take out 'since' and substitute 'because' with no change in meaning. However, in 1.11 this same substitution will not work (in fact the sentence does not even make sense with this substitution). 1.6 Hints and Tips for Standardizing Arguments ---------------------------------------------- If you find standardizing arguments difficult, you are not alone. There is no easy-to-follow formula for standardizing. If there were, a computer program could be generated to do it for you. Here are some suggestions; think of these as "clues" that you need to put together to figure out the correct standardization. I will use the following argument to illustrate: **Example 1.12: Looking for Indicator Words** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ \[1\] Lassie is a mammal, \[2\] since Lassie is a dog. \[3\] So, Lassie is warm blooded. I recommend looking for the main conclusion or conclusions first. In this example, we have the word 'so', which is often a conclusion indicator. However, sometimes it is not. How can you tell if it is? Here I recommend the previously mentioned substitution trick. Take out the word 'so' and put 'therefore'. If it does not change the meaning of the sentence, then it is a conclusion indicator. If it does change the meaning, then it is not a conclusion indicator. Let's try this: We have not changed the meaning; therefore, we have a conclusion indicator. Compare that with the following example where your friend approaches you and says: If we try substituting, we get: It is clear that this substitution changes the meaning of the sentence. The word 'so' is used as an introductory element, not a conclusion indicator, in this example. Okay, so now we have \[3\] as a conclusion. Of course, this does not in itself tell us whether \[3\] is the main conclusion. So, the next thing we should ask is whether \[3\] is used to support anything else. Here the answer is "no", so we now know that \[3\] is a main conclusion. In fact, in this case, it is *the* main conclusion since there is only one main conclusion in our target passage. Our next task is to figure out how \[1\] and \[2\] fit into the argument. I find a good way to do this is to try out different diagrams as "experiments". Here are a few such experiments:  The next thing to do is to run the experiments by starting from the bottom and reading the diagrams saying 'therefore' everywhere there is an arrow. Remember, we are trying to standardize the following: \[1\] Lassie is a mammal, \[2\] since Lassie is a dog. \[3\] So, Lassie is warm blooded. Let's run experiment "C". To do this we would read (out loud is best) C starting at the bottom and saying 'therefore' where we see an arrow. So: "Lassie is a mammal", therefore, "Lassie is a dog", therefore, "Lassie is warm blooded". It is hopefully clear that C does not capture the author's intended logic. If we read A and C using the same procedure, we should find that they too don't capture the author's intended meaning. D, on the other hand, does capture the meaning. When you have to standardize on a quiz or an exam, I encourage you to make a little diagram and read it back to see if it makes sense. If your classmates have a different answer on a weekly quiz, it helps to diagram what they are saying to see if it makes sense. I hope this makes things a little easier for you. As always, the best way to get better at critical thinking is practice. I strongly encourage you to try the following practice quizzes. Answers can be found at the end of the chapter. Quizzes for Chapter One: Critical Thinking by Example. ====================================================== Quiz 1.1 -------- 1\. \"\[1\] Drinking and Philosophy are similar, \[2\] since they both hurt your head.\" Which of the following best describes the relationship between \[1\] and \[2\]? a\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[1\]. b\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[2\]. c\) \[1\] and \[2\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 2\. \"\[1\] Drinking and Philosophy are similar, \[2\] since they both hurt your head.\" This argument is best described as a\) Convergent b\) Linked c\) Serial d\) Simple e\) Divergent 3\. \"\[1\] You should watch \"House\", since \[2\] it teaches you about medical stuff, and \[3\] the star, Hugh Laurie, is cute beyond belief.\" Which of the following best describes the relationship between \[1\] and \[2\]? a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[2\]. b\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[1\]. c\) \[1\] and \[2\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 4\. \"\[1\] You should watch \"House\", since \[2\] it teaches you about medical stuff, and \[3\] the star, Hugh Laurie, is cute beyond belief.\" Which of the following best describes the relationship between \[2\] and \[3\]? a\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[3\]. b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[2\]. c\) \[2\] and \[3\] are linked premises. d\) None of the above. 5\. \"\[1\] You should watch \"House\", since \[2\] it teaches you about medical stuff, and \[3\] the star, Hugh Laurie, is cute beyond belief.\" Which of the following best describes the relationship between \[1\] and \[3\]? a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[3\]. b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[1\]. c\) \[1\] and \[3\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 6\. \"\[1\] You should watch \"House\", since \[2\] it teaches you about medical stuff, and \[3\] the star, Hugh Laurie, is cute beyond belief.\" Which of the following best describes the argument? a\) Simple b\) Linked c\) Convergent d\) Divergent e\) Serial 7\. \"\[3\] Justice requires that we provide all citizens the minimal requirements for living. \[2\] Healthcare is a minimal requirement for living. \[1\] This shows that we ought to provide universal healthcare.\" Which of the following best describes the relationship between \[1\] and \[2\]? a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[2\]. b\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[1\]. c\) \[1\] and \[2\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 8\. \"\[3\] Justice requires that we provide all citizens the minimal requirements for living. \[2\] Healthcare is a minimal requirement for living. \[1\] This shows that we ought to provide universal healthcare.\" Which of the following best describes the relationship between \[2\] and \[3\]? a\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[3\]. b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[2\]. c\) \[2\] and \[3\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 9\. \"\[3\] Justice requires that we provide all citizens the minimal requirements for living. \[2\] Healthcare is a minimal requirement for living. \[1\] This shows that we ought to provide universal healthcare.\" Which of the following best describes the relationship between \[1\] and \[3\]? a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[3\]. b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[1\]. c\) \[1\] and \[3\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 10\. \"\[3\] Justice requires that we provide all citizens the minimal requirements for living. \[2\] Healthcare is a minimal requirement for living. \[1\] This shows that we ought to provide universal healthcare.\" Which of the following best describes the argument? a\) Convergent b\) Serial c\) Simple d\) Divergent e\) Linked Quiz 1.2 -------- 1\. \"\[1\] If you want to do well in this course you should come to every class. \[2\] Since you want to do well, \[3\] you should come to every class.\" Which of the following best describes the relationship between \[1\] and \[2\]? a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[2\]. b\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[1\]. c\) \[1\] and \[2\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 2\. \"\[1\] If you want to do well in this course you should come to every class. \[2\] Since you want to do well, \[3\] you should come to every class.\" Which of the following best describes the relationship between \[1\] and \[3\]? a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[3\]. b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[1\]. c\) \[1\] and \[3\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 3\. \"\[1\] If you want to do well in this course you should come to every class. \[2\] Since you want to do well, \[3\] you should come to every class.\" Which of the following best describes the relationship between \[2\] and \[3\]? a\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[3\]. b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[2\]. c\) \[2\] and \[3\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 4\. \"\[1\] If you want to do well in this course you should come to every class. \[2\] Since you want to do well, \[3\] you should come to every class.\" Which of the following best describes this argument? a\) Simple b\) Linked c\) Convergent d\) Divergent e\) Serial 5\. \"\[1\] Since statistics show that people without healthcare insurance are more likely to die, \[2\] a vote for universal healthcare is a vote to save lives. \[3\] A vote against universal healthcare is a vote for death.\" Which of the following best describes the relationship between \[1\] and \[2\]? a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[2\]. b\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[1\]. c\) \[1\] and \[2\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 6\. \"\[1\] Since statistics show that people without healthcare insurance are more likely to die, \[2\] a vote for universal healthcare is a vote to save lives. \[3\] A vote against universal healthcare is a vote for death.\" Which of the following best describes the relationship between \[1\] and \[3\]? a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[3\]. b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[1\]. c\) \[1\] and \[3\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 7\. \"\[1\] Since statistics show that people without healthcare insurance are more likely to die, \[2\] a vote for universal healthcare is a vote to save lives. \[3\] A vote against universal healthcare is a vote for death.\" Which of the following best describes the relationship between \[2\] and \[3\]? a\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[3\]. b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[2\]. c\) \[2\] and \[3\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 8\. \"\[1\] We should have universal healthcare, \[2\] because universal healthcare will reduce bad health, \[3\] and bad health leads to suffering.\" Which best describes the relationship between \[1\] and \[2\]? a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[2\]. b\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[1\]. c\) \[1\] and \[2\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 9\. \"\[1\] We should have universal healthcare, \[2\] because universal healthcare will reduce bad health, \[3\] and bad health leads to suffering.\" Which best describes the relationship between \[2\] and \[3\]? a\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[3\]. b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[2\]. c\) \[2\] and \[3\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 10\. \"\[1\] We should have universal healthcare, \[2\] because universal healthcare will reduce bad health, \[3\] and bad health leads to suffering.\" Which pattern best describes this argument? a\) Simple b\) Convergent c\) Linked d\) Serial e\) Divergent Quiz 1.3 -------- 1\. \"\[1\] We need a strong government. \[2\] It will keep us free and \[3\] it will keep us strong.\" What is the relationship between \[1\] and \[2\]? a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[2\] b\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[1\] c\) \[1\] and \[2\] are linked d\) None of the above 2\. \"\[1\] We need a strong government. \[2\] It will keep us free and \[3\] it will keep us strong.\" What is the relationship between \[2\] and \[3\]? a\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[3\] b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[2\] c\) \[2\] and \[3\] are linked d\) None of the above 3\. \"\[1\] We need a strong government. \[2\] It will keep us free and \[3\] it will keep us strong.\" What is the relationship between \[1\] and \[3\]? a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[3\] b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[1\] c\) \[1\] and \[3\] are linked d\) None of the above 4\. \"\[1\] We need a strong government. \[2\] It will keep us free and \[3\] it will keep us strong.\" This argument is best described as a\) a linked argument b\) a divergent argument c\) a simple argument d\) a convergent argument e\) a serial argument 5\. \"\[1\] You should save your money, \[2\] because you can help lower interest rates and \[3\] have something for a rainy day.\" What is the relationship between \[1\] and \[2\]? a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[2\] b\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[1\] c\) \[1\] and \[2\] are linked d\) None of the above 6\. \"\[1\] You should save your money, \[2\] because you can help lower interest rates and \[3\] have something for a rainy day.\" What is the relationship between \[1\] and \[3\]? a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[3\] b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[1\] c\) \[1\] and \[3\] are linked d\) None of the above 7\. \"\[1\] You should save your money, \[2\] so you can help lower interest rates and \[3\] have something for a rainy day.\" What is the relationship between \[2\] and \[3\]? a\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[3\] b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[2\] c\) \[2\] and \[3\] are linked d\) None of the above 8\. \"\[1\] You should save your money, \[2\] because you can help lower interest rates and \[3\] have something for a rainy day.\" This argument is best described as a\) a serial argument b\) a convergent argument c\) a divergent argument d\) a linked argument e\) a simple argument 9\. \"\[1\] You should save your money \[2\] because you will need a vacation, \[3\] since your boss is such a jerk.\" The relationship between \[1\] and \[2\] is best described as a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[2\] b\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[1\] c\) \[1\] and \[2\] are linked d\) None of the above 10\. \"\[1\] You should save your money \[2\] because you will need a vacation, \[3\] since your boss is such a jerk.\" The relationship between \[2\] and \[3\] is best described as a\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[3\] b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[2\] c\) \[2\] and \[3\] are linked d\) None of the above Quiz 1.4 -------- 1\. \"\[1\] You should save your money \[2\] because you will need a vacation, \[3\] since your boss is such a jerk.\" Which of the following best describes \[3\] a\) \[3\] is a main premise b\) \[3\] is a subpremise that is a subconclusion c\) \[3\] is a subpremise that is not a subconclusion d\) it is a main conclusion 2\. \"\[1\] You should save your money \[2\] because you will need a vacation, \[3\] since your boss is such a jerk.\" This argument is best described as a\) a serial argument b\) a convergent argument c\) a divergent argument d\) a linked argument e\) a simple argument 3\. \"\[1\] Students should study hard. \[2\] They should also come to class. \[3\] College costs a lot of money.\" Which of the following best describes this argument? a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[2\] b\) \[2\] is offered n support of \[1\] c\) \[1\] and \[2\] are linked d\) None of the above 4\. \"\[1\] Students should study hard. \[2\] They should also come to class. \[3\] College costs a lot of money.\" Which of the following best describes this argument? a\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[3\] b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[2\] c\) \[1\] and \[2\] are linked d\) None of the above 5\. \"\[1\] Students should study hard. \[2\] They should also come to class. \[3\] College costs a lot of money.\" Which of the following best describes this argument? a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[3\] b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[1\] c\) \[1\] and \[2\] are linked d\) None of the above 6\. \"\[1\] Students should study hard. \[2\] They should also come to class. \[3\] College costs a lot of money.\" Which of the following best describes this argument? a\) This is a simple argument b\) This is a convergent argument c\) This is a linked argument d\) This is a serial argument e\) This is a divergent argument 7\. \"\[1\] Brushing supports good tooth health. \[2\] So, regular brushing is a great idea, \[3\] since you don\'t want bad teeth.\" Which of the following best describes this argument? a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[2\] b\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[1\] c\) \[1\] and \[2\] are linked d\) None of the above 8\. \"\[1\] Brushing supports good tooth health. \[2\] So, regular brushing is a great idea, \[3\] since you don\'t want bad teeth.\" Which of the following best describes this argument? a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[3\] b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[1\] c\) \[1\] and \[3\] are linked d\) None of the above 9\. \"\[1\] Brushing supports good tooth health. \[2\] So, regular brushing is a great idea, \[3\] since you don\'t want bad teeth.\" Which of the following best describes this argument? a\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[3\] b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[2\] c\) \[2\] and \[3\] are linked d\) None of the above 10\. \"\[1\] Brushing supports good tooth health. \[2\] So, regular brushing is a great idea, \[3\] since you don\'t want bad teeth.\" Which of the following best describes this argument? a\) This is a linked argument b\) This is a convergent argument c\) This is a divergent argument d\) This is a simple argument e\) This is a serial argument Quiz 1.5 -------- 1\. \"\[1\] Dogs are friendly. \[2\] Dogs make the best pets. \[3\] After all, cats are not nearly so friendly.\" a\) The main conclusion is: Dogs are friendly. b\) The main conclusion is: Dogs make the best pets. c\) The main conclusion is: cats are not nearly so friendly. 2\. \"\[1\] Dogs are friendly. \[2\] Dogs make the best pets. \[3\] After all, cats are not nearly so friendly.\" a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[2\]. b\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[1\]. c\) \[1\] and \[2\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 3\. \"\[1\] Dogs are friendly. \[2\] Dogs make the best pets. \[3\] After all, cats are not nearly so friendly.\" a\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[3\]. b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[2\]. c\) \[2\] and \[3\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 4\. \"\[1\] Dogs are friendly. \[2\] Dogs make the best pets. \[3\] After all, cats are not nearly so friendly.\" a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[3\]. b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[1\]. c\) \[1\] and \[3\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 5\. \"\[1\] Dogs are friendly. \[2\] Dogs make the best pets. \[3\] After all, cats are not nearly so friendly.\" a\) This is a linked argument. b\) This is a divergent argument. c\) This is a convergent argument. d\) This is a serial argument. e\) This is a simple argument. 6\. \"\[1\] You only love your country if you are willing to unquestioningly follow its leaders. \[2\] You don\'t love your country. \[3\] You have questioned our country\'s leadership.\" a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[2\]. b\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[1\]. c\) \[1\] and \[2\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 7\. \"\[1\] You only love your country if you are willing to unquestioningly follow its leaders. \[2\] You don\'t love your country. \[3\] You have questioned our country\'s leadership.\" a\) \[2\] is offered in support of \[3\]. b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[2\]. c\) \[2\] and \[3\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 8\. \"\[1\] You only love your country if you are willing to unquestioningly follow its leaders. \[2\] You don\'t love your country. \[3\] You have questioned our country\'s leadership.\" a\) \[1\] is offered in support of \[3\]. b\) \[3\] is offered in support of \[1\]. c\) \[1\] and \[3\] are linked. d\) None of the above. 9\. \"\[1\] You only love your country if you are willing to unquestioningly follow its leaders. \[2\] You don\'t love your country. \[3\] You have questioned our country\'s leadership.\" a\) This is a convergent argument. b\) This is a divergent argument. c\) This is a serial argument. d\) This is a linked argument. e\) This is a simple argument. 10\. \"\[1\] You only love your country if you are willing to unquestioningly follow its leaders. \[2\] You don\'t love your country. \[3\] You have questioned our country\'s leadership.\" a\) The main conclusion is: You only love your country if you are willing to unquestioningly follow its leaders. b\) The main conclusion is: you don\'t love your country. c\) The main conclusion is: you have questioned our country\'s leadership. Answers ======= Answers Quiz 1.1 ---------------- 1. \[a\] The word 'since' is used here as a premise indicator. This means that what comes after 'since' is a premise. 2. \[d\] Any argument that has one premise and one conclusion is a simple argument. 3. \[b\] The word 'since' is used here as a premise indicator. This means that what comes after 'since' is a premise. 4. \[d\] \[2\] and \[3\] are both main premises that are not linked. 5. \[b\] \[3\] is offered as a reason to believe \[1\]. 6. \[c\] 7. \[b\] The phrase 'this shows that' is used as a conclusion indicator. This means that what comes after 'this shows that' is a conclusion. 8. \[c\] The premises are linked through the idea of 'minimal requirement for living' to support \[1\]. 9. \[b\] 10. \[e\] Answers Quiz 1.2 ---------------- 1. \[c\] The word 'since' is used here as a premise indicator. This means that what comes after 'since' is a premise. Conditional sentences ("If..then..." sentences) are often premises linked to another premise. 2. \[a\] 3. \[a\] 4. \[b\] 5. \[a\] 6. \[a\] 7. \[d\] Both \[2\] and \[3\] are main conclusions supported by \[1\]. 8. \[b\] The word 'because' is used here as a premise indicator. This means that what comes after 'because' is a premise. 9. \[c\] \[2\] and \[3\] are linked through the idea of 'bad health'. 10. \[c\] Answers Quiz 1.3 ---------------- 1. \[b\] 2. \[d\] 3. \[b\] 4. \[d\] 5. \[b\]  6. \[b\] 7. \[d\] 8. \[b\] 9. \[b\] 10. \[b\] Answers Quiz 1.4 ---------------- 1. \[c\]. 3 is a subpremise because it supports a subconclusion. Main premises always support a main conclusion. Subpremises always support subconclusion. 3 is NOT a subconclusion because there is no premise supporting 3.  2. \[a\] Serial arguments always have at least one subconclusion. 2 is a subconclusion. 3. \[d\] This one is a bit tricky. One way to tackle it is to ask of each statement whether the author offers any reason to believe it. So, for the claim, \"\[1\] Students should study hard", ask whether the author offers any reason for this claim. Answer: yes "\[3\] College costs a lot of money.\" We can ask the same of \[2\] "They should also come to class." Does the author offer any reason to believe \[2\]?: yes \[3\]. Does the author offer any reason to believe \[3\]?: no. This tells us that \[3\] is not a conclusion, which means it must be a premise. 4. \[b\] 5. \[b\] 6. \[e\] 7. \[a\] The word 'so' is used as a conclusion indicator, which tells us that \[2\] is some sort of conclusion. The word 'since' is a premise indicator, which tells us that \[3\] must be some sort of premise. \[1\] and \[3\] are linked through the idea of 'tooth health'.  8. \[c\] 9. \[b\] 10. \[a\] Answers Quiz 1.5 ---------------- 1. \[b\] This one is a bit tricky. Some may think it is a linked argument, since both premises mention 'friendly'. It is clear, however, these are distinct ideas. \[1\] says that dogs are friendly, while \[3\] makes a comparative claim: dogs are friendlier than cats. It could be the case that both cats and dogs are unfriendly even while dogs are friendlier. For example, suppose both are mean, but cats are meaner. 2. \[a\] 3. \[b\] 4. \[d\] 5. \[c\] 6. \[a\]  7. \[b\] 8. \[c\] 9. \[d\] 10. \[b\]