Exam 2: The Elements of Argument

A philosopher says, "Studying philosophy is sufficient to teach critical thinking." Which would be the best response if you wanted to argue that this statement was false?

An argument with false premises can never be valid.

Explain why it is important not to confuse necessary and sufficient conditions. In your answer, provide an example of a condition that is necessary but not sufficient, an example of a condition that is sufficient but not necessary, and finally an example of a condition that is both necessary and sufficient for another condition.

For a rectangle to be considered a square, having four sides of equal length is

Inductive arguments rely on

A valid deductive argument must have

Circular reasoning is called ad hominem.

Adding unstated assumptions to a reconstructed argument is not acceptable in argument analysis.

For a shape to be a triangle, having three sides is

What is an ad hominem argument? Can you think of any context in which such arguments are common? Explain whether you think they are a problem in this context and why.

Why is it easier to establish that a hypothesis is false by the experimental method than that it is true?

What is the fallacy of affirming the consequent? Give an example and explain what is wrong with it.

Explain the difference between a deductive argument and an inductive argument.

Explain Semmelweis's reasoning for the conclusion that the increased mortality rates in the First Division were the result of blood poisoning. Be sure to discuss some of his rejected hypotheses.

An argument that fails to prove anything because it takes for granted what it is supposed to prove is

According to Barker and Kitcher, modern science poses no threat to people's religious convictions.

Imagine that a philosopher says, "Knowing how to read is a necessary condition for being a philosopher." A listener responds by saying, "I'm a philosopher, but I don't know how to read." Has the listener proved that the philosopher's statement is wrong? Why or why not?

For human beings, breathing is a sufficient condition for staying alive.

How do Barker and Kitcher explain the origin of antiscience attitudes? Is this explanation fully convincing in your view? Why or why not?

It is a fallacy to reason that if A is sufficient for B, then A is necessary for