CHAPTER 1 - CRITICAL THINKING AND ARGUMENT

Exercise 1.1
A.
1. Not an argument. It is a statement.
2. Not an argument. A quote.
3. Not an argument. It is a statement.
4. Not an argument. It is a statement.
5. Not an argument. A quote.
6. Not an argument. It is an imperative.
7. Not an argument. It is a statement.
8. Not an argument. It is a statement.
9. Not an argument. It is a question.
10. Not an argument. It is an exclamation.
11. Not an argument. It is a statement.
12. Not an argument. It is a statement, shows opinion hate.
13. Not an argument. It is a question.
14. Not an argument. It is a quote.
15. Not an argument. It is a quote.

B.
Jack: Let’s go up the hill. Not a statement; it is a command.
Jill: That’s a bad idea. Statement.
Jack: Why? Not a statement. It’s a question.
Jill: It’s a very steep hill. Statement.
Jack: I don’t care about that. Statement.
Jill: But I have a heart condition. Statement.
Jack: I don’t care about that either. Statement.
Jill: Well, I see that you are a heartless human being. Statement.
Jack: To the contrary, I have a very healthy heart. Statement.
Jill: But you don’t care at all about my heart. Statement.
Jack: If you have a heart condition, then you should get a good cardiologist to care for it.
Statement.
Jill: You’re making stupid jokes about my heart condition. Statement.
Are you some kind of jerk, or what? Not a statement; it’s a question.

C.
1. Three statements: Stefan walked to the store. Stefan bought a newspaper. Stefan went
to a café to read it.
2. One statement: Mercury is composed of mostly hot gasses.
3. No statements. It is a question.
4. Two statement. You break it and You bought it.
5. Two statements: The internet has revolutionized the way people communicate. Cell
phones have revolutionized the way people communicate.
6. No statements.
7. No statements.
8. One statement: He’ll have either soup or salad.
9. No statements: both are imperatives.
10. Two statements: Cherokees believed they had a sacred duty to avenge deaths. War
parties formed following a death.
11. One statement.
12. Two statements: I know myself as a creation of God. I am also obligated to realize
and remember that everyone else and everything else are also God’s creation.
Hidden: I know myself, everyone else, and everything else are God’s creation.
13. Two statements: The government should not be in the business of limiting speech. An
institution should have freedom to restrict the speech of anyone at any time who utilizes
resources within its jurisdiction.
14. Three statements: There is good reason why it is important to be able to listen to
another person. We don’t have to learn to interrupt which comes naturally. It is important
to be able to listen to another person
15. No statement. It is a command.

D.
1. Likely to be a premise.
2. Controversial statement. A false belief.
3. Likely to be a premise.
4. Not a statement. A command.
5. Controversial statement. A false belief.
6. Controversial statement. A false belief.
7. Controversial statement. A false belief.
8. Not a statement.
9. Controversial statement. A false belief.
10. Controversial statement.
11. Not a statement
12. Not a statement. A command.
13. Likely to be a premise.
14. Controversial statement.
15. Likely to be a premise.

E.
1. Conclusion.
2. Conclusion.
3. Conclusion.
4. Could be a conclusion. It's a statement.
5. Not a likely conclusion. It’s a request.
6. Not a likely conclusion. It’s not controversial.
7. Not a likely conclusion. It’s not controversial.
8. Not a conclusion. It is a question.
9. Conclusion.
10. Conclusion.
11. Conclusion.
12. Not a conclusion. It is a command.
13. Likely to be a premise, not a conclusion. It’s uncontroversial.
14. Conclusion.
15. Not likely to be a conclusion. It’s not controversial.
Exercise 1.2
A.
(1) It is a steep hill.
(2) I have a heart condition.
Therefore,
(3) It is a bad idea to go up the hill.

(1) You don’t care about my heart.

[2] People should care about other people’s hearts.
Therefore,
(3) You are a heartless human being.

(1) You have a heart condition.

[2] A good cardiologist can help you with your heard condition.
Therefore,
(3) You should get a good cardiologist to care for it.
B.
1. Not an argument. Two statements: I don’t like Facebook. I can’t stand Twitter either.

2. Argument.
(1) Every time you hang out with him, you feel miserable.
[2] You don’t want to feel miserable.
Therefore,
(3) You shouldn’t go out with him.

3. Argument.
(1) I have seen 1,000 swans.
(2) All of the swans I have seen are white.
Therefore,
(3) Most swans are white.

4. Argument.
(1) Gas prices will rise.
(2) The housing market will continue to slump.
Therefore,
(3) The United States will surely fall into a recession next year.

5. Argument.
(1) Carbon-dioxide emissions are higher.
(2) Atmospheric particulates are increased.
[3] If emissions and particulates increase, then global temperatures will increase.
Therefore,
(4) Global temperatures will rise over the coming century.

6. Not an argument.

7. Argument
(1) Mary Wollenstonecraft was a woman.
(2) Mary Wollenstonecraft was a famous philosopher.
Therefore,
(3) Some famous philosophers are women.
8. Argument.
(1) I’ve seen him there most days at about this time.
Therefore,
(2) I bet he’s at Starbucks.

9. Not an argument.

10. Argument:
(1) Tai nam is my favorite kind of Vietnamese noodles.
[2] If it is my favorite kind of Vietnamese noodle, then you will like tai nam.
Therefore,
(3) You will like tai nam.

11. Not an argument.

12. Not an argument.

13. Not an argument.

14. Not an argument. It’s a description.

15. Two arguments:

(1) The table is the same color but appears differently in reflected light.
(2) If I move, the different parts are reflected.
Therefore,
(3) The distribution of colors will look different with my movement.

(1) The distribution of colors will look different with my movement.

(2) No two people can see the table from the exact same point of view.
(3) Any change in point of view means some change in the reflected light.
Therefore,
(4) No two people looking at the table at the same time will see the same distribution of
colors.
Exercise 1.3
1. Argument
(1) Every time you hang out with him, you feel miserable.
[2] You don’t want to feel miserable.
Therefore,
[3] You shouldn’t go out with him.
2. Argument
[1] If you don’t buy guns, people who make them will lose their jobs.
[2] People don't want others to become unemployed.
Therefore,
(3) There are economic benefits to gun sales.

(1) There are economic benefits to gun sales.

(2) People’s lives are saved by guns.
[3] Saving people’s lives is good.
Therefore,
[4] You shouldn’t support gun control.

3. Not an argument. It’s an explanation.

4. This isn’t an argument. There’s only one statement, and arguments must have at least
two.

5. Not an argument. It’s an explanation of the fact that people do not save for retirement.

6. Argument
(1) Murata has more experience.
(2) Murata has better communication skills than Johnson.
[3] More experience and education make better employees.
Therefore,
(4) We should hire Murata.

7. Argument
(1) 87% of 1000 surveyed college students preferred instant messaging to email.
Therefore,
(2) The vast majority of college students prefer instant messaging to email.
8. This is a collection of assertions (statements), but it isn’t an argument because none of
these statements is an attempt to provide reasons for any other statement.

9. Argument
(1) Young people on average are getting fatter.
(2) Adult diabetes is rising.
[3] Public school lunches are not currently selling healthy food.
Therefore,
(4) Public schools should stop selling unhealthy food.

10. Two arguments

(1) Most words are open to multiple interpretations.
Therefore,
(2) If laws are what their words mean, then the meaning of most laws would be
unacceptably ambiguous.

(1) If laws are what their words mean, then the meaning of most laws would be
unacceptably ambiguous.
Therefore,
(2). The idea that the law is what the words that constitute it mean is too simple.

11. Not an argument.

12. Not an argument.

13. Argument
(1) The unemployment rate for recent four-year college graduates is 6.8%.
(2) The unemployment rate for recent high school graduates is nearly 24%.
(3) Nearly 200,000 jobs for workers with Bachelor’s degree were added during the
recession.
(4) Two million jobs for college-educated workers have been added during the recovery.
(5) Nearly four out of five jobs destroyed by the recession where held by workers with a
high school diploma or less.
Therefore,
(6) A college degree is the best defense against unemployment.
14. There are two arguments in this passage.
(1) Nearly 90% of field-collected and laboratory-reared earwig males hold their penises
in the right-ready state.
Therefore,
(2) Earwig males have a strong preference for their right penises.

(1) Earwig males have a strong preference for their right penises.
(2) The two penises are morphologically indistinguishable and fully functional.
Therefore,
(3) Earwig males strong preference for their right penises is largely, if not entirely,
behavioral.

15. At the end of the passage there are two arguments:

(1) Investing money on behalf of clients requires trust.
[2] Relationships based on trust require concern with ethics.
Therefore,
(3) Investors should have an interest in ensuring they do not invest in a company with
questionable ethical standards.

(1) Investors should have an interest in ensuring they do not invest in a company with
questionable ethical standards.
Therefore,
[2] Investors should not continue investing in SAC hedge funds.

Exercise 1.4
1. Unstated premise. Suicides are undesirable.
2. Unstated premise. People should do things that make them less likely to be victims of
crime.
3. Unstated conclusion. A single-payer health care system would be bad.
4. Unstated conclusion: The United States should adopt a single-payer health care system.
5. Unstated conclusion. She did not take Bio 101.
6. Unstated premise. In order to graduate, students must complete their academic
residency requirements.
7. All premises and conclusions are stated.
8. Unstated premise: The precipitate is either calcium or sodium.
9. Unstated premise. If you do not wash your hands, you will make everyone sick.
10. Two unstated premises and an unstated conclusion. Unstated premise. All investors
want excess return. Unstated premise. The risks can cause people to lose money.
Unstated conclusion. All investors must accept losing money
11. One unstated premise and unstated conclusion. Unstated premise. Romeo and Juliet
do not want to be killed. Unstated conclusion. Romeo and Juliet should not elope.
12. Unstated premise: (1) Amphibians can only live in climates warmer than that
currently found in Antarctica. The argument also relies on the assumption that if
Antarctica were warmer, the rest of the world must have been warmer as well.
13. Two unstated premises. Unstated premise. Pluto cannot be smaller than other space
objects and retain its planet status. Unstated premise. The asteroid Ceres is of comparable
size to Pluto and 2003 UB313.
14. All premises and conclusions are stated.
15. Unstated conclusion. High-street retailers should meet the demands for clothing styles
from the mature women market.
Exercise 1.5
A.
Argument 1:
(1) There’s a mean giant at the top of this beanstalk.
Therefore,
(2) We shouldn’t climb this beanstalk.

Argument 2:
(1) A book said that there was a mean giant at the top of a beanstalk.
Therefore,
(2) There might be a mean giant at the top of this beanstalk.

2. Argument 1:
(1) The patient is having severe chest pain.
(2) There is a history of heart attacks in his family.
Therefore,
(3) The patient is having a heart attack and we must operate immediately.
Argument 2:
(1) The patient has a receipt from Joe’s Greasy Fried Chicken Shack for five portions of
Greasy chicken wings.
(2) The patient’s hands have a lot of grease on them.
Therefore,
(3) The patient is more likely to have indigestion than a heart attack.
(1) The patient is more likely to have indigestion than a heart attack.
Therefore,
(2) We should not immediately perform surgery.

B.
1. Argument
(1) I-75 is always a mess.
(2) They are repaving part of I-75 today.
Therefore,
(3) We should take I-285 instead of I-75.

2. Not an argument. Description.

3. Argument.
(1) Your car is pulling to the right.
(2) The tires look ok.
Therefore,
(3) One of your tie rods is bent.

4. Not an argument. Command.

5. Not an argument. Question.

6. Not an argument. Assertion.

7. Argument.
(1) Brown sugar is white sugar with molasses added.
(2) The molasses adds only minuscule amounts of minerals.
Therefore,
(3) Nutritionally, brown sugar and white sugar not much different.

(1) Nutritionally, brown sugar and white sugar not much different.
Therefore,
(2) Brown sugar is not a healthier option than white sugar.
8. Argument.
(1) You have to buy a coat today.
(2) The only coats in your size are a car coat and a trench coat.
(3) You hate the car coat.
Therefore,
(4) You should buy the trench coat.

9. Argument.
(1) The Spaniards appeared for the first time in 1517, whereas Quetzalcoatl was supposed
to have returned in a One-Reed year of the Aztec calendar in 1519.
Therefore,
(2) Montezuma may not have believed that Cortes was Quetzalcoatl.

10. Not an argument. Description.

11. Not an argument.

12. Not an argument.

13. Not an argument. Description.

14. Argument.
(1) The fossils of amphibians have been found in Antarctica.
[2] Amphibians cannot live in extremely cold climates.
Therefore,
(3) The weather in Antarctica at that time must have been warmer than it is now.

15. Argument.
(1) Melanesians do not believe in physiological paternity.
(2) Melanesian men are as jealous as men in societies in which procreation is understood.
[3] Explanations are either genetic or cultural.
Therefore,
(4) Sexual jealousy has a genetic rather than purely cultural explanation.
C.
1. Argument.
(1) Students do better when classes are smaller.
Therefore,
(2) We should decrease class sizes.

2. Explanation.
Explanans: He does not exercise, eats donuts for breakfast, and eats hamburgers every
night.
Explanandum: He is getting fat.

3. Argument against an explanation.

(1) His parents were divorced before he was two.
[2] He did not go to school until after he was two.
Therefore,
(3) The divorce could not have caused the drop in grades.

(1) The divorce could not have caused the drop in grades.
Therefore,
(2) There is some other cause for the drop in grades.

4.This passage contains one argument and two explanations.

The argument looks like this:
(1) The dinosaur’s right foot was deformed.
Therefore,
(2) This dinosaur could barely walk.
The first explanation describes why a right foot was deformed, with the cause being a
poorly healed break (explanans). The second explanation addresses why a dinosaur died,
attributing it to the fact that the dinosaur could barely walk (explanans). This second
explanation relies on background knowledge about the importance of walking for
survival. The key difference is that the ability of a dinosaur to walk is debatable, whereas
the deformation of a foot due to a break and the dinosaur's death are observable facts.
Therefore, the explanations focus on causes, not arguments for observable events.

5. Neither an argument nor an explanation.

6. Neither an argument nor an explanation.

7. Explanation.
Explanans: The inside wheel’s track has a smaller radius, making a tighter turn.
Explanandum: The front wheels are not pointing in the same direction when you turn the
car.

8. There’s an explanation.
The explanans: the Cherokees believed they had a sacred duty to avenge the deaths of
fallen comrades
Explanandum: war parties formed quickly following a death.

9. Explanation.
Explanans: People are concerned the economy’s expansion will erode due to mortgage
industry troubles.
Explanandum: Stocks fell yesterday.

10. Argument.
(1) Peace and freedom result when one’s sexual desires relax.
[2] One desires to have peace and freedom.
Therefore,
(3) It is good to no longer desire to have sex.

11. Explanation
Explanans: Humans could build shelters, use fire and make clothes that would counter
any advantages of having fur like keeping warm
Explanandum: Humans do not have fur.

12.Explanation.
The explanandum: the sky is blue.
The explanans: sunlight scatters in all directions when it reaches the Earth’s atmosphere
and blue light is scattered more than other colors because it travels as shorter, smaller
waves.

13. Explanation
Explanans: The U.S. would never invest in rehabilitating the poor as long as things like
Vietnam continued to drain off energy and resources.
Explanandum: The war was an enemy of the poor.
14. Argument.
(1) We do not have to learn to interrupt which comes naturally.
(2) Interrupting is considered impolite.
Therefore,
(3) We have to learn not to interrupt.

(1) We have to learn not to interrupt.

[2] We act either naturally or by learning.
Therefore,
(3) It is important that we learn to listen.

15. No argument and no explanation. Just an announcement.

Exercise 1.6
C.
1. Argument.
(1) You were playing with your dinosaur in the kitchen less than an hour ago.
(2) You have not been out of the house in the last hour.
Therefore,
(3) Your dinosaur is in the house.

2. Not an argument.

3. Argument.
(1) If he goes to work, he’ll get sick.
(2) He won’t go to work.
Therefore,
(3) He will not get sick. This is an imperfect standardization because it contains pronouns
but the passage does not tell us who “he” is.

4. This is a question, not an argument.

5. Argument.
(1) Napoleon either lost at Waterloo or at Austerlitz.
(2) Napoleon did not lose at Austerlitz.
Therefore,
(3) Napoleon lost at Waterloo.
6. Argument.
(1) There is some red dirt on Watson’s shoe.
(2) There is red dirt on the ground in front of the Seymour Street Post Office that lies in
such a way that it is difficult to avoid treading in it in entering.
Therefore,
(3) Watson has been to the Seymour Street Post Office.

7. Argument.
(1) God has many earthly children but he does not tenderly care for them and he inflicts
wanton cruelty on them.
(2) People condemn those who have children and do not tenderly care for them and treat
them cruelly.
(3) People do not condemn God’s failure to tenderly care for his earthly children and
God’s infliction of wanton cruelty on them.
Therefore,
(4) People do not correctly use their reasoning abilities when they think about religious
matters.

8. Explanation.
Explanandum: Holle was convicted of murder.
Explanans: the felony murder law, that Holle lent his car to a friend, that this friend used
the car to drive to commit a burglary, and that someone was murdered during the course
of the burglary.

9. Not an argument.

10. Not an argument. There is a set of descriptions.

11. Argument.
(1) 1964 is an election year.
Therefore,
(2) 1964 threatens to be the most explosive year America has ever witnessed.

12. This is a collection of assertions. Not an argument.

13. Argument.
(1) After 45 days, the presence of sesame oil in the diets was observed to lower blood
pressure.
(2) After 45 days, the withdrawal of sesame oil from the diets of the same patients
brought back their initial blood pressure (before the addition of the sesame oil).
Therefore,
(3) Sesame oil in the diet lowers blood pressure levels.

14. Explanation.
Explanans: Descartes has waited until such time as he has experience, background
knowledge, leisure, age and maturity sufficient to allow him to be able to successfully
carry out such an enterprise.
Explanandum: Why Descartes will begin his overthrow of all his opinions today.

15. Mr. Logan’s argument:

(1) None of the prior convictions were felonies that led to having his rights revoked.
(2) Anyone whose rights are not revoked should be treated equally with those who have
had their rights restored.
(3) Those convictions on which rights were restored are exempted from the three prior
convictions law.
Therefore,
(4) Mr. Logan’s case should be exempted.

(1) Mr. Logan’s case should be exempted.

Therefore,
(2) His sentence should be 10 years, not 15 years.

The Court’s argument

(1) If something is never lost, it cannot be restored.
(2) Mr. Logan never lost his rights.
Therefore,
(3) His rights were not restored.

(1) His rights were not restored.

Therefore,
(2) His rights do not fall under the exemption.
(1) His rights do not fall under the exemption.
Therefore,
(2) Mr. Logan’s sentence should be 15 years, not 10.

CHAPTER 2 - WHAT MAKES A GOOD ARGUMENT?

Exercise 2.1

1. (1) Oxygen is an element essential for life on Earth as we know it. True
Therefore,
(2) If oxygen were to vanish from the Earth’s atmosphere, life as we know it would
cease. True

2. Not true
(1) All birds can fly.
(2) Penguins are birds.
Therefore,
(3) Penguins can fly.

3. Fails both tests. Premises are false and irrelevant to conclusion.

(1) All cars are blue.
(2) All pigs have wings. not true
Therefore,
(3) All buses have three wheels.

*4. Passes the true premises test and fails the proper form test.
(1) Elephants are mammals.
(2) Dogs are mammals.
Therefore,
(3) Elephants are dogs.

5. Arguments pass the true premises test because both premises are true. They are
just barely relevant to the conclusion, in that they give evidence that some things
can be recycled. But there is not enough evidence to pass the proper form test very
well, since the things in the conclusion are not the same sort of materials as the
things in the conclusion.
(1) Many types of plastic can be recycled.
(2) Many types of glass can be recycled.
Therefore,
(3) Many types of paper can be recycled.

6. Fails the true premises test because premise (2) is false. The argument might pass
the proper form test if one assumes that there are two and only two genders (men
and women). If one does not make that assumption, then the first premise is a false
dichotomy.
(1) Rihanna is either a man or a woman.
(2) Rihanna is a man.
Therefore,
(3) Rihanna isn’t a woman.

7. Fails both tests. There is no reason to believe that everyone likes any given food.
The argument fails the proper form test because, if the premises were true, then
everyone would already be buying pizza regularly, so no increase could occur. The
premises, if true, would actually provide evidence against the conclusion.
(1) Everyone likes pizza.
(2) Everyone who likes pizza buys it regularly.
Therefore,
(3) Pizza sales will rise over the next six months.

*8. This argument passes both the true premises test and the proper form test.
(1) If you drop wood into water, it foats unless it’s held underwater by a heavy object.
(2) Trees are made of wood.
Therefore,
(3) When trees fall into water, they foat unless they’re held underwater by a heavy object.

9. The argument passes the true premises test, but the argument does not do well on
the proper form test.
(1) The discovery of antibiotics increased life expectancy.
(2) Antibiotics have no effect on viruses.
Therefore,
(3) There must be some causes of reduced life expectancy besides viruses.
10. The argument fails the true premises test because both premises are false. IF
they were true, they would prove the conclusion, so this argument passes the proper
form test.
(1) All cars have three wheels.
(2) Everything with three wheels is blue.
Therefore,
(3) All cars are blue.

11. Fails both tests. The first premise is false and the second premise is not
knowable. The references in the two premises are different, so it is not clear that if
you would be eaten, anyone else and therefore any given “somebody” would be
eaten, so the premises, even if true, could not prove the conclusion. The argument
fails the proper form test.
(1) If you walk on the lines in the sidewalk, you will be eaten by bears.
(2) Sometime in the next week, someone will walk on the lines in the sidewalk.
Therefore,
(3) Sometime in the next week, someone will be eaten by bears.

*12. It’s unlikely that this argument passes the true premises test. There aren’t very
many purple houses. The argument passes the proper form test.
(1) I have seen 4,000 houses, and every last one of them was purple.
Therefore,
(2) All houses are purple.

13. The argument fails the true premises test since it's doubtful most people have
seen the feet of 4,000 ducks. However, if the speaker were a scientist studying ducks,
it would pass. If true, the premise supports the conclusion, passing the proper form
test. Unlike the color of a house (as in #12), webbed feet are not a choice for ducks.
If 4,000 ducks have webbed feet, it's likely all do, barring injury or deformity.
(1) I have seen 4,000 ducks, and every last one of them had webbed feet.
Therefore,
(2) All ducks have webbed feet.

14. The argument passes the true premises test as both are uncontroversial
empirical statements. But the argument fails the proper form test because both
premises are irrelevant to the conclusion.
(1) Many people like candy.
(2) Many people like cats.
Therefore,
(3) Many people like going to the movies.

15. Only “you” will know if this argument passes the true premises test, since only
you know whether the premises are true or not. The argument passes the proper
form test because it is a valid deductive argument.
(1) If you walk to the store, you will get a latté.
(2) You did not get a latté.
Therefore,
(3) You did not walk to the store.

Exercise 2.2
1. In 1900, William I was the Emperor of Germany.
Likely to know: History enthusiasts or students specializing in German history.
Unlikely to know: General audience or younger people without much historical
knowledge.

2. Each water molecule contains two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen.
Likely to know: General educated public, science students.
Unlikely to know: Very young children without basic science education.

3. In 2007, Dina Bowman published an article in *The Journal of Sociology*.

Likely to know: Sociology professionals or academics.
Unlikely to know: General public, especially non-sociologists.

4. Between 1997 and 2007, standardized testing became more common in American
elementary schools.
Likely to know: American educators, policymakers, or parents active in that time.
Unlikely to know: Non-Americans or people without interest in educational trends.

5. Football is a popular American sport.

Likely to know: Americans or people familiar with American culture.
Unlikely to know: People from countries where football (soccer) dominates.

6. The famous philosopher René Descartes was born in France and died in Sweden.
 Likely to know: Philosophy students or scholars.
Unlikely to know: General audience without philosophical background.

7. Two plus two equals four.

Likely to know: Everyone who has received basic education.
Unlikely to know: Very young children or individuals who haven’t had basic education.

8. The two tests for a good argument are the true premises test and the proper form
test.
Likely to know: Logic students, debate professionals.
Unlikely to know: General audience without knowledge of logic or philosophy.

9. Hyat Custovic is 5'6" tall.

Likely to know: People personally acquainted with Hyat Custovic.
Unlikely to know: General public, since Hyat Custovic isn't widely known.

10. All matter exhibits wavelike properties.

Likely to know: Physics students or scientists.
Unlikely to know: General audience without knowledge of physics.

11. The speed of a computer processor of a given price doubles approximately every
two years (Moore's Law).
Likely to know: Computer scientists, tech enthusiasts.
Unlikely to know: People not familiar with technology trends.

12. "Buy land—they aren’t making any more of it."

Likely to know: People familiar with economics or real estate.
Unlikely to know: Younger people or those not interested in real estate.

13. "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to
read."
Likely to know: People familiar with humor, Groucho Marx enthusiasts.
Unlikely to know: Non-English speakers or people not familiar with Groucho Marx’s
humor.
14. The U.S. Census occurs every ten years.
Likely to know: Americans, statisticians.
Unlikely to know: Non-Americans or those uninterested in demographics.

15. TRPML3 is a member of the TRPML subfamily of the transient receptor

potential cation channel superfamily.
Likely to know: Biologists, specifically those in cellular biology.
Unlikely to know: General audience without scientific expertise.

Exercise 2.3
A. Five questions indicating things you don’t know but wish you knew:
1. How does consciousness arise from the brain's physical processes?
2. What will be the long-term impact of climate change on global ecosystems?
3. What is the best way to achieve personal happiness and fulfillment?
4. How can humanity develop faster-than-light space travel, if at all possible?
5. Is there life beyond Earth, and how can we confirm it?

B. Five things that you know you don’t know:

1. I don’t know how to speak Japanese.
2. I don’t know how to code in advanced programming languages like C++ or Python.
3. I don’t know the intricacies of quantum physics.
4. I don’t know the exact genetic makeup of different human traits.
5. I don’t know how to pilot an airplane.

C. Three cases where you thought you knew something but didn’t:
1. I thought I knew how to manage my time effectively, but after missing several
important deadlines, I realized I needed better organizational skills.
2. I thought I understood the financial market well enough to make profitable
investments, but I lost money due to my lack of knowledge about risk management.
3. I thought I knew how to fix a computer issue, but after trying multiple solutions and
failing, I had to call technical support to solve the problem.

Exercise 2.4
A
(1) All G1 are G2.
(2) All G1 are G3.
Therefore,
(3) All G2 are G3.

C
(1) If S1, then S2.
(2) S1.
Therefore,
(3) S2.

B
(1) All G1 are G2.
(2) All G2 are G3.
Therefore,
(3) All G1 are G3

D
(1) If S1, then S2.
(2) S2.
Therefore,
(3) S1.

1. B
(1) All dogs are mammals.
(2) All mammals are things with hair.
Therefore,
(3) All dogs are things with hair.

2. D
(1) If that’s a car, then I’m a donkey.
(2) I’m a donkey.
Therefore,
(3) That’s a car.

3. B
(1) All children are humans.
(2) All humans are mammals.
Therefore,
(3) All children are mammals.

*4. Other form

(1) All men are humans.
(2) All men are under eighteen years of age.
Therefore,
(3) All women are under eighteen years of age.

5. C
(1) If you throw a match on that gas, it will burn.
(2) You will throw a match on that gas.
Therefore,
(3) It will burn.

6. A
(1) All houses are made of wood.
(2) All houses are made of stone.
Therefore,
(3) Everything made of wood is made of stone.

7. Other form
(1) If he gets in trouble, he’ll call his mother.
(2) He won’t get in trouble.
Therefore,
(3) He won’t call his mother.

*8. Other form

(1) Some computers are PCs.
(2) All PCs aren’t Macintoshes.
Therefore,
(3) Some computers aren’t Macintoshes.

9. Other form
(1) She’s either at the grocery store or at the mall.
(2) She isn’t at the mall.
Therefore,
(3) She’s at the grocery store.

10. B
(1) All cows are pigs.
(2) All pigs are ducks.
Therefore,
(3) All cows are ducks.

11. Other form

(1) George is a human.
(2) All humans are mammals.
Therefore,
(3) George is a mammal.

*12. C
(1) If you jump from the Empire State Building, you will die.
(2) You will jump from the Empire State Building.
Therefore,
(3) You will die.

13. D
(1) If you are human, you will die.
(2) You will die.
Therefore,
(3) You are human.

14. A
(1) All pigs are things that have wings.
(2) All pigs are things that love country music.
Therefore,
(3) All things that have wings are things that love country music.

15. Other form

(1) Cell phones have replaced many cameras.
(2) Cameras all use "lm.
Therefore,
(3) Cell phones all use "lm.

Exercise 2.5
A.
1. Deductive and valid.
(1) If that is a cow, then I am a goat.
(2) It is a cow.
Therefore,
(3) I am a goat.

2. Inductive. One clue that the author does not intend the argument to be deductive
is the wording “I bet,” which usually indicates there is some chance involved.
(1) I called Joi and she said she was at the library.
Therefore,
(2) She is probably at the library.

3. Main and sub arguments are both deductive and valid.

(1) The syllabus says that you need to cite three sources.
[2] If you only cite one source, you have not cited three sources.
(3) You only cite one source.
Therefore,
[4] You have not cited three sources.

[1] You have not cited three sources.

[2] If you have not cited three sources, then you have not met the requirement.
Therefore,
[3] You have not met the requirement.

[1] You have not met the requirement.

[2] If you have not met the requirement, you will not get the grade you want.
Therefore,
(3) You won’t get the grade you want.

4. Deductive and passes the proper form test (= is valid):

(1) If humans are social animals, then most people prefer to eat in the company of other
people.
(2) Humans are social animals.
Therefore,
(3) Most people prefer to eat in the company of other people.

Inductive and passes the proper form test (= is strong):

(1) The Gallup survey interviewed 10,000 people who said they preferred to eat in the
company of other people.
Therefore,
(2) Most people prefer to eat in the company of other people.

5. Not an argument. Description.

6. Deductive and valid.

(1) Bret is either in class or in the rec center.
(2) Bret is not in class.
Therefore,
(3) Bret is in the rec center.

7. Not an argument. Instructions.

8. Deductive and passes the proper form test (= is valid):

(1) If I am a hamster, then my mother is a hamster.
(2) I am a hamster.
Therefore,
(3) My mother is a hamster.
Inductive and passes the proper form test (= is strong):
(1) The mothers of all my best friends and neighbors are hamsters.
Therefore,
(2) My mother is a hamster.

9. Deductive and sound.

(1) All human beings are mortal.
(2) Socrates was a human being.
Therefore,
(3) Socrates was mortal.

10. Deductive and valid, but not sound. The first premise is false. Some cars do not
have transmissions (they may have been stolen or taken out for repair)
(1) All cars have a transmission.
(2) Your car is a car.
Therefore,
(3)Your car has a transmission.

11. The argument is inductive, strong, and cogent if you’ve seen 500 cars. Inductive
arguments don't guarantee the truth of the conclusion, so less evidence is needed
than in deductive arguments, which require premises that prove the conclusion
without exception. In inductive reasoning, probable exceptions don’t significantly
weaken the argument.
(1) I have seen 500 cars.
(2) All 500 cars had transmissions.
Therefore,
(3)Your car probably has a transmission.

12. An argument. This is an inductive.

(1) Real people begin their lives as helpless infants.
(2) They remain in a state of extreme, asymmetrical dependency for anywhere from ten to
twenty years.
(3) At the other end of life, those who live into old age are likely to encounter another
period of extreme dependency.
(4) This second period of dependency may continue for as long as twenty years.
Therefore,
(5)Humans are likely to experience two phases of extreme dependency in life: once in
infancy and possibly again in old age.

13. Deductive and valid. Two subarguments.

Sub Argument 1.
[1] Wisdom includes being correct in assessing what one knows.
(2) This man thinks he knows something he does not.
Therefore,
(3) This man is not wise.
Sub Argument 2.
(1) Socrates knows that I do not know anything.
Therefore,
(2) I am not incorrect in what I know.
Main Argument.
[1] Not being incorrect about lack of wisdom is wiser than not being wise at all.
Therefore,
(2) I Socrates am “a trifle” wiser than this man is.

14. Deductive and valid.

(1) The earth is either flat or spherical.
(2) If the earth is flat, it does not project a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar
eclipse.
(3) If the earth is round, it projects a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.
(4) The earth projects a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.
Therefore,
(5) The earth is spherical.

15. Deductive and valid main argument plus two subarguments.

Sub Argument. Deductive
(1) The heart pumps 1/6 of an ounce of blood every time it pumps.
(2) The heart beats 1,000 times every half hour.
Therefore,
(3) The heart pumps 540 pounds of blood in a day.
Sub Argument. Inductive.
(1) If the blood is produced by the liver, the liver would have to produce 540 pounds a
day.
(2) The liver does not produce 540 pounds of blood in a day.
Therefore,
(3) The blood is not produced by the liver.

Main Argument. Deductive.

(1) The blood is either produced by the liver or it circulates.
(2) The blood is not produced by the liver (conclusion to subargument above)
Therefore,
(3) The blood circulates.

B.1
(1) If the earth is made of mozzarella, then the moon is made of green cheese.
(2) The earth is made of mozzarella.
Therefore,
(3) The moon is made of green cheese.
(b)
(1) I have visited 2,000 celestial bodies and they were all made of green cheese.
Therefore,
(2) The moon is made of green cheese.

2.
(a)
(1) Martha Stewart is either a good cook or she is a Canadian.
(2) Martha Stewart is not a Canadian.
Therefore,
(3) Martha Stewart is a good cook.
(b)
(1) I ate dinner at Martha Stewart’s house every night for the past two weeks and every
meal was delicious.
Therefore,
(2) Martha Stewart is a good cook.

3.
(a)
(1) All jungles are places where it rains often.
(2) The Amazon jungle is a jungle.
Therefore,
(3) It often rains in the Amazon jungle.
(b)
(1) It has rained every day in the last month in the Amazon jungle.
Therefore,
(2) It often rains in the Amazon jungle.

4.
(a) Deductive and passes the proper form test (= is valid):
(1) If humans are social animals, then most people prefer to eat in the company of other
people.
(2) Humans are social animals.
Therefore,
(3) Most people prefer to eat in the company of other people.
(b) Inductive and passes the proper form test (= is strong):
(1) The Gallup survey interviewed 10,000 people who said they preferred to eat in the
company of other people.
Therefore,
(2) Most people prefer to eat in the company of other people.

5.
(a)
(1) If you are tired of waiting around for the thing to load, you should buy a new
computer.
(2) You are tired of waiting around for the thing to load.
Therefore,
(3) You should buy a new computer.
(b)
(1) Your current computer is a wreck and you have lots of money.
Therefore,
(2) You should buy a new computer.

6.
(a)
(1) If my computer is neither white nor black but in between, then my computer is gray.
(2) My computer is neither white nor black but in between.
Therefore,
(3) My computer is gray.
(b)
(1) I checked out almost all of the computers in the other dorm rooms on my floor and
they are gray.
Therefore,
(2) My computer is gray.

7.
(a)
(1) If my watch says 5:40 pm and it is two minutes fast, then it must really be 5:42 pm.
(2) My watch does say 5:40 pm and it is two minutes fast.
Therefore,
(3) It is 5:42 pm.
(b)
(1) The clock on the wall says that it is 5:42 pm.
Therefore,
(2) It is 5:42 pm

8.
(a) Deductive and passes the proper form test (= is valid):
(1) If I am a hamster, then my mother is a hamster.
(2) I am a hamster.
Therefore,
(3) My mother is a hamster.

(b) Inductive and passes the proper form test (= is strong):

(1) The mothers of all my best friends and neighbors are hamsters.
Therefore,
(2) My mother is a hamster..

9.
(a)
(1) Either the Atlanta Braves is a good baseball team or the Washington Nationals is a
good baseball team.
(2) The Washington Nationals are not a good baseball team.
Therefore,
(3) The Atlanta Braves is a good baseball team.

(b)
(1) The Atlanta Braves won the last ten games they played.
Therefore,
(2) The Atlanta Braves are a good baseball team.

10.
(a)
(1) I either like Coldplay or I like Polka music.
(2) I don’t like Polka music.
Therefore,
(3) I like Coldplay.
(b)
(1) I like rock bands.
(2) I like alternative bands.
(3) I like bands from England.
Therefore,
(4) I like Coldplay.

C.
(1) Socrates was a human being.
(2) All human beings are mortal.
Therefore,
(3) Socrates was mortal.

a. Deductive argument.
b. Yes, it is relevant. Because the word “All” includes every single human
without exception so Socrates is also included in the group.
c. The sub argument is inductive.
(1) Everyone known to be a human being in the past was mortal.
(2) No one who was human was known to be immortal.
Therefore,
(3) All humans are mortal.

D.
(1) Residents of the 4th Congressional District of our state will not be affected by the
upcoming tax hike.
(2) Residents who do not earn more than the minimum wage will not be affected by the
upcoming tax hike.
Therefore,
(3) Residents of the 4th Congressional District of our state do not earn more than the
minimum wage.

Using G for group and F for feature:

G1 = Residents of the 4th Congressional District of our state
G2 = Residents who do not earn more than the minimum wage.
F1 = Will not be affected by the upcoming tax hike.

(1) All G1 have F1.

(2) All G2 have F1.
Therefore,
(3) All G1 are G2.

You can see that this argument about the residents does not pass the proper form
test, therefore, changing it into:
(1) All college students attend classes and read books.
(2) All graduate students attend classes and read books.
Therefore,
(3) All college students are graduate students.

Exercise 2.6
A.
1. The first statement is relevant to the second.
Krystal’s losing weight. Krystal’s on a diet.
2. The first statement is irrelevant to the second.
Luke’s a cruel and unfeeling person. Luke’s views about water conservation are
false.
3. The first statement is irrelevant to the second.
Danica got good grades in art and music courses. Danica would be a good airline
pilot.
4. The first statement is relevant to the second.
Oosh failed his College Algebra course. Oosh won’t graduate on time.
5. The first statement is irrelevant to the second.
Wireless mice are more comfortable because they don’t have a cord attached.
Wireless mice will last longer than corded mice.
6. The first statement is relevant to the second.
The pipes are rusted, and the roof needs to be replaced. The house is in bad shape.
7. The first statement is irrelevant to the second.
On the SAT, Arica’s scores ranked in the bottom 25th percentile. Arica’s likely to
be a very nice person.
8. The first statement is relevant to the second.
Many country music fans hate NASCAR Sprint Cup Racing. Many country music
fans hate NASCAR Camping World Truck Racing.
9. The first statement is relevant to the second.
The moon’s made of green cheese. The moon is edible.
10. The first statement is relevant to the second.
 On Monday, the Federal Reserve announced plans to lend $60 billion to banks.
Inflation is likely to fall over the next six months.

11. The first statement is relevant to the second.

Children from single-parent families tend to have lower academic achievement in
high school. Children from single-parent families tend to have lower incomes.
12. The first statement is relevant to the second.
Today Coca-Cola reported that case sales fell 2% in the "rst quarter of 2005. Coca-
Cola pro"ts fell in the "rst quarter of 2005.
13. The first statement is relevant to the second.
Researchers have trained chimpanzees to understand words spoken by humans and
found that they can understand simple commands. Chimpanzees may someday speak
with humans.
14. The first statement is relevant to the second.
“[O]ffspring [of self-fertilizing plants] carry only the genes of their single parent
and do not maintain enough variation for evolutionary flexibility in the face of
environmental change.” “[S]elf-fertilization is a poor strategy for long-term survival.”
(Gould 1992, 20, material omitted)
15. The first statement is relevant to the second.
Background: A pluton is a large mass of rock (tens to hundreds of kilometers
across), usually roughly circular, that was produced when magma rose from the center of
the Earth but cooled and solidi"ed before breaking through the surface. When it cools, it
turns into granite.
“A prominent positive magnetic anomaly spans the 100 km distance between
Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton Island in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Analysis of the magnetic anomaly led to the interpretation that it is produced by four
separate, approximately circular, source bodies aligned along the northwesterly trend of
the anomaly. Seismic data, physical property measurements, and magnetic and gravity
anomalies were used to further investigate the anomaly sources through forward
modeling techniques.”
Statement 1: “The four source bodies have densities and magnetic susceptibilities
compatible with granitic compositions.”
Statement 2: “[The] bodies are interpreted as plutons emplaced along the boundary
between Ganderian composite terranes to the north and the Ganderian Brookville–Bras
d’Or terrane to the south.” (Cook 2007, 1551, material omitted)
B.
(1) Relevant since being in need of money might motivate one to go to a place where
there is a lot of money like a bank.
(2) Not relevant since the crime is not similar.
(3) Not relevant since phrenology is a disproven “science.”
(4) Only relevant if the prior convictions were similar.
(5) Relevant since we are often influenced by those around us.
(6) Relevant but not much since there are many blue Fords.
(7) Relevant since there are probably not that many bank robbers that use a .22 pistol.

Exercise 2.7
1.Socrates was a human being. All human beings are mortal. Therefore, Socrates was
mortal.
Argument with relevant, dependent premises.
(1) Socrates was a human being.
(2) All human beings are mortal.
Therefore,
(3) Socrates was mortal.

2. Trans Fatty acids contribute to heart disease. Children shouldn’t be given foods that
contribute to heart disease. Therefore, children shouldn’t be given foods that contain trans
fatty acids.
Argument with relevant, dependent premises.
(1) Trans Fatty acids lead to heart disease.
(2) Children shouldn’t be given foods that lead to heart disease.
Therefore,
(3) Children should not be given foods with trans fatty acids.

3. Rihanna is either a man or a woman. Rihanna is a man. Therefore, Rihanna isn’t a

woman.
Argument with relevant, dependent premises.
(1) Rhianna is either a man or a woman.
(2) Rhianna is a man.
Therefore,
(3) Rhianna isn’t a woman.
4. If you walk on the lines in the sidewalk, you’ll be eaten by bears. Sometime in the next
week, someone will walk on the lines in the sidewalk. Therefore, sometime in the next
week, someone will be eaten by bears.

Argument with relevant, dependent premises.

(1) If you walk on the lines in the sidewalk, you’ll be eaten by bears.
(2) Sometime in the next week, someone will walk on the lines in the sidewalk.
Therefore,
(3) Sometime in the next week, someone will be eaten by bears.

5. All cows are pigs. All pigs are ducks. Therefore, all cows are ducks.
Argument with relevant, dependent premises.
(1) All cows are pigs.
(2) All pigs are ducks.
Therefore,
(3) All cows are ducks.

6. Reza didn’t have a bump on his head. If he’d fallen, he’d have a bump on his head. He
didn’t fall.
Argument with relevant, dependent premises.
(1) If Reza had fallen, he would have a bump on his head.
(2) Reza didn’t have a bump on his head.
Therefore,
(3) Reza didn’t fall.

7. The coffee cup was still warm. The newspaper was open on the dinning room table.
The microwave was heating up a frozen dinner. The killer couldn’t have gone far!
Main and Sub Argument with relevant, independent premises.
Subargument.
(1) The coffee cup was still warm.
(2) The newspaper was open on the dining room table.
(3) The microwave was heating up a frozen dinner.
[4] Each of these three scenes indicates someone was recently present in the room.
Therefore,
[5] If someone was recently in the room, he or she couldn’t have gone far.

Main argument.
(1) If someone was recently in the room, he or she couldn’t have gone far.
Therefore,
(2) The killer couldn’t have gone far

8. Many people think that air pollution is a serious problem. And vehicle emissions are a
signi"cant cause of air pollution. So it’s clear that most people support laws requiring a
reduction in the emissions produced by cars.
An argument with relevant, dependent premises.
(1) Many people think that air pollution is a serious problem.
(2) Vehicle emissions are a significant cause of air pollution.
Therefore,
(3) Most people support laws requiring a reduction in the emissions produced by cars.

9. I walked down the street through the cold, crisp air. A front had come through, and the
city air, usually so full of city smells, had a hint of the countryside in it. The smell of the
horses pulling the carriages in Central Park added to the country feel of the day.
Not an argument.

10. The first survey indicated that 26% of likely voters favor Senator Smith. A second
survey, taken a week later, found that 23% of likely voters favored him. It seems that
Smith is likely to get about 25% of the vote in the primary.
Argument with relevant, dependent premises.
(1) A survey indicated 26% of voters in favor of Smith.
(2) A slightly later survey indicated 23% of voters favored Smith.
Therefore,
(3) It is likely that about 25% of voters will favor Smith in the election.

11. The Toyota has better gas mileage than the Honda. The Toyota costs less and has a
better repair record. I’d say you should buy the Toyota.
Argument with relevant, independent premises.
(1) The Toyota has better mileage than the Honda.
(2) The Toyota costs less than the Honda.
(3) The Toyota has a better repair record than the Honda.
Therefore,
(4) You should buy the Toyota.
12. “Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect
upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for
the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the
negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation
with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental
development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the bene"ts they would
receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.” (Brown v. Board of Education 1954,
495)
Two argument, a sub argument (relevant and dependent premises), and a main
argument(relevant and independent premises)
Sub argument
(1) Segregation in schools has detrimental effects on black children.
(2) Segregation enforced by the law is taken to imply the inferiority of blacks.
(3) A sense of inferiority reduces children’s motivation to learn.
Therefore,
(4) The impact of segregation is greater when segregation is enforced by the law.
Main argument
(1) The impact of segregation is greater when segregation is enforced by the law.
Therefore,
(2) Segregation enforced by the law has the tendency to retard development of black
children and deprive them of benefit is received in integrated schools.

13. “Sarah, a woman of twenty-"ve, lively and engaging at the time of the "rst interview,
is intelligent, humorous, and sad as she describes her experiences of self-defeat. [Her
self-defeat is an unwanted pregnancy.] Pregnant again by the same man and confronting a
second abortion, she sees the hopelessness of the relationship.” (Gilligan 1982, 116)
Not an argument.

14. “[The Catholic Church] holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the
priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in
the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant
practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living
teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the
priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for his Church.” (Pope Paul VI 1976)
Argument with two irrelevant premises and one relevant independent premise.
(1) It was recorded that Christ chose only men for Apostles.
(2) The Catholic Church tradition is to imitate the Christ in choosing only men.
(3) The Catholic Church's authority has constantly held that the exclusion of women from
the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church.
Therefore,
(4) It is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood of the Catholic Church.

15. “Atheists have solid reasons not to believe. We don’t need a divine being to explain
the natural world, and don’t know why we should trust claims about humankind’s divine
origins because they are in religious texts. Give 2001: A Space Odyssey a thousand years
and who knows what might happen.” (Porter 2007, A34)
Main and Sub Argument with relevant, independent premises.
Subargument.
[1] Religious texts are not always right.
[2] The age of a text is not relevant to its containing truth.
Therefore,
(3) There is no reason to trust religious texts.

Main Argument.
(1) The natural world can be explained without a divine being.
(2) There is no reason to trust religious texts (conclusion from first argument).
Therefore,
(3) Atheists have reasons that support their view.

C.Read the following conversation between the famous detective Sherlock Holmes and
his friend Dr. Watson, from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s novel The Sign of the Four.
“[Holmes leaned] back luxuriously in his armchair, and sending up thick blue
wreaths from his pipe, [said: “I see] that you have been to the Wigmore Street PostOffice
this morning [and] that when there you dispatched a telegram.” “Right!” said [Watson].
“Right on both points! But I confess that I don’t see how you arrived at it. It was a sudden
impulse upon my part, and I have mentioned it to no one.”
“It is simplicity itself,” [Holmes] remarked, chuckling at my surprise,—“so
absurdly simple that an explanation is superfluous. Observation tells me that you have a
little reddish [dirt] adhering to your instep. Just opposite the [Wigmore] Street Office
they have taken up the pavement and thrown up some earth which lies in such a way that
it is difficult to avoid treading in it in entering. The earth is of this peculiar reddish tint
which is found, as far as I know, nowhere else in the neighborhood.”
“How, then, did you deduce the telegram?”
 “Why, of course I knew that you had not written a letter, since I sat opposite to
you all morning. I see also in your open desk there that you have a sheet of stamps and a
thick bundle of post-cards. What could you go into the post-office for, then, but to send a
[telegram]? Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.”
(Doyle 1890, 12–13, material omitted)

(a)
Argument 1
(1) There is reddish dirt on your foot.
(2) Deep dirt has been overturned near the Wigmore post office recently.
(3) The dirt near the Wigmore post office is difficult to avoid when entering the post
office.
(4) The dirt near the post office is a reddish kind that is only known by Holmes to be
near the post office (within the confines of the neighborhood).
Therefore,
(5) You were at the Wigmore Post-Office this morning.

Argument 2
(1) I sat next to you all morning and did not observe you writing a letter.
(2) I saw that you have enough stamps and postcards in your possession.
[3] The only reasons to go to the post office are to send a letter, buy stamps, buy
postcards, or dispatch a telegram.
(4) You went to the Post-Office today [this is (5) from first argument above].
Therefore,
(5) You dispatched a telegram today.

(b) Argument 1 is inductive because it is possible that one could have avoided the
red dirt, or that the red dirt was from a different source.
Argument 2 is deductive because the unstated premises create a case where the
conclusion must be true if the premises are true.

(c)
Argument1
The first premise depends on any one of the other three. The other three are
somewhat dependent in that they have a cumulative effect that is greater than any
one of them alone. However, as long as premise one was joined with at least one of
the other three, the argument would still be somewhat strong, so that means there is
some independent support for each of the second, third and fourth premise.
Argument2
The premises are all dependent, as long as the unstated premise is accepted. It has a
valid argument form called Denying a Disjunct (that will be introduced in Chapter
Five).

(d)
Argument 1 If we make the assumptions that Holmes is not a liar, this argument
passes the True Premises test. This inductive argument passes the proper form test,
because if all the premises were true, the conclusion would be very likely.
Argument 2 This argument does not do as well on the True Premises test. The
unstated premise is clearly assumed by Holmes, but it is not always true. Moreover,
Watson may have reason to buy even more postcards or stamps than Holmes thinks
he needs and surely Watson could have penned his letter the previous day and just
gone to mail it today. However, this deductive argument does pass the proper form
test because it is valid. It is not sound because the unstated premise is not necessarily
true.

Exercise 2.9
A.
1. Appeal to Popularity.
Munstermeister is North Rhine–Westphalia’s best-selling beer! And North Rhine–
Westphalia is Germany’s most populous province. You should enjoy Munstermeister too!
2. Appeal to Popularity.
Budweiser is the best-selling beer in the world. So it must be the best beer in the world.
3. Appeal to Tradition.
The Reinheitsgebot law about what ingredients could be used in beer governed
Germany‘s beer production from 1516 to 1987. And look how good German beer is.
Germany should reinstate the Reinheitsgebot.
4. Appeal to Novelty.
New Munstermeister Brat is Germany’s "rost beer with the flavor of bratwurst brewed
right in! You should try Munstermeister Brat today!
5. Easy Target.
Angela: “I think that you shouldn’t have any more beer. You’ve had two, and you have to
drive home.”
Danielle: “I can’t believe that you think you should always decide what I eat and drink!
It’s a free country, and I’m going to eat and drink what I want!”
6. Not an argument.
“Mamas, Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Cowboys.” (Title of a Willie Nelson
(2003) song)
7. No Fallacy.
Scientists at Very Cool University observed 12,456 gastropod mollusks (also known as
snails and slugs) and noticed that 12,367 had two pairs of tentacles on their head. The
remaining mollusks appeared to have lost one or more tentacles due to injury. They
concluded that all gastropod mollusks have two pairs of tentacles.
8. Appeal to Tradition.
As we consider whether or not to move from paper add–drop forms to an online add–
drop process, we need to remember that we’ve used paper add–drop forms for a long
time. An online process might not work well for our university.
9. Two arguments. No fallacy.
Eric: “If we move to the online add–drop process, students who do not have access to the
Internet will have trouble adding and dropping courses. We don’t want that. So we
shouldn’t use an online add–drop policy.”
Samantha: “I think that most students nowadays have easy access to the Internet. Most of
my friends can surf on their cell phones. And the paper forms are a pain. I think online
adds and drops is a great idea.”
10. Appeal to Popularity.
Everyone thinks that the Earth is round. So why do you persist in saying that it’s flat?
11. Easy Target.
Amanda: “I think it is important for the United States to remain in Iraq. If we don’t, oil
supplies to the West could be threatened.”
Luke: “How can you say that the United States should invade a country every time we
think that there is a problem with oil supplies? We need to work to conserve energy at
home, not send in the military to take it from others.”
12. Appeal to Tradition.
Martha: “You need to put sage in the stuffing for your turkey.”
Gareth: “Why do you say that?”
Martha: “Well, my mother always put sage in her stuffing.”
13. Not an argument.
“Give me liberty or give me death!” Patrick Henry (Henry [1775] 1999, 232)
14. Appeal to Novelty.
 The iPad is a revolutionary mobile tablet computer. [Assume that this is stated as a part
of an argument for the conclusion that you should buy an iPad.]
15. Red Herring.
“The board of the American International Group [AIG] will meet on Wednesday to
consider joining a misguided lawsuit against the government, which spent $182 billion to
save the insurance giant from near certain failure. As part of its "fiduciary duty, the board
is required to consider the suit, but it would be well advised to vote against joining the
case, which was initiated by the company’s former top executive, Maurice Greenberg.
Mr. Greenberg argues that the government put onerous terms on its bailout, hurting the
interests of shareholders of the company, including him. [Mr. Greenberg’s argument
ignores] the fact that in September 2008, when the government stepped in to help AIG,
no private investors were willing to "nance the company, which many feared had been
made insolvent by its enormous bets on mortgage-related investments. In fact, just four
months before the bailout, Mr. Greenberg himself described the situation at the company
as a “crisis.” Had the Treasury and Federal Reserve not stepped in, AIG would have "led
for bankruptcy protection, wiping out its shareholders.” (The New York Times, “A Mind-
Boggling Claim,” 2013, material omitted.)

B.
1. Astrological signs have an influence on a person’s destiny:

● Appeal to Tradition: "Astrology has guided people’s destinies for thousands of

years. Since ancient civilizations used it to make decisions, it must be accurate."
● Appeal to Novelty: "New astrological apps and algorithms can now predict your
destiny more accurately than ever before. It's cutting-edge science."

2. Everyone should get a college education:

● Appeal to Tradition: "For generations, people have gone to college to secure a

better future. If it worked for our parents and grandparents, it’s the right path for
everyone."
● Appeal to Novelty: "With all the modern advancements and new job opportunities
created by today’s economy, getting a college degree is more important than ever
before."

3. You should get married:

 ● Appeal to Tradition: "People have been getting married for centuries. Marriage
has always been a cornerstone of a stable society, so it’s the right choice."
● Appeal to Novelty: "Today, marriage has evolved into a modern partnership. It’s
now trendy to have wedding ceremonies that reflect who you truly are in this
progressive age."

4. The earth is flat:

● Appeal to Tradition: "Ancient civilizations like the Greeks and Egyptians

believed the Earth was flat. If they thought so back then, there must be some truth
to it."
● Appeal to Novelty: "There are new modern theories out there now that question
conventional science. Cutting-edge flat Earth research is revealing things NASA
doesn’t want you to know."

5. Dwight Yoakam is a great country singer:

● Appeal to Tradition: "Dwight Yoakam has been singing country for decades. If
his music has lasted this long, it’s proof that he’s truly great."
● Appeal to Novelty: "In today’s country music scene, Dwight Yoakam’s sound
stands out as fresh and innovative, compared to all the overly-produced tracks out
there."

Exercise 2.10
1. Appeal to Ignorance.
I think that the oysters made me sick. After all, no one has shown me that they didn’t
make me sick.
2. Appeal to Tradition.
Every morning for the past ten years I’ve had raisin bran for breakfast. I must keep
having it.
3. Appeal to Fear.
If you don’t start believing in this mission, you’ll spend the next ten years in the brig.
4. Ad Hominem.
My opponent has committed adultery. He cheated on his taxes. He hired an illegal alien
as a nanny. His views on tax reform simply can’t be trusted.
5. No fallacy.
Where is that package? Hmm, the time before last, a package fell off the porch and into
the bushes. I better check there.
6. Not an argument.
“And I wonder, still I wonder, who’ll stop the rain?” (Lyrics from “Who’ll Stop the
Rain?” Creedence Clearwater Revival 1976)
7. Begging the Question.
When an abortion occurs, one person, the pregnant woman, has killed an innocent person
without any justi"cation. If someone kills an innocent person without justification,
they’ve committed murder. Therefore, abortion is a type of murder.
8. No fallacy.
The chest pains indicate that he has either heart problems or acid reflux. The EKG shows
no heart problems, so he must have acid reflux.
9. Appeal to Pity.
OK, Dad, I know that I should have changed my oil, but I didn’t. And now my engine is
shot. But if I don’t have a car, I can’t get to work. You’ve got to buy me a new car!
10. Ad Hominem.
Congressman Eskandari’s tax proposal doesn’t deserve serious consideration. After all,
Eskandari has been a Congressman for fourteen years, and everyone knows what that
means—that he has never met a tax plan he didn’t like.
11. Appeal to Popularity.
People buy more Budweiser than milk. Budweiser must be a great beer.
12. No argument and therefore no fallacy.
“Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were
perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last people you’d expect to be
involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn’t hold such nonsense.”
(Rowling 1997, 7)
13. If taken as an argument with an unstated premise, it would be an Appeal to
Ignorance.
“Who says I am not under the special protection of God?” (Often attributed to Adolf
Hitler, but source is undocumented)
14. Appeal to Ignorance.
Senator Joseph McCarthy argued that those named on a list of people were Communists.
Regarding one person on his list, he stated: “I do not have much information on this
[person] except the general statement of the agency that there is nothing in the "les to
disprove his Communist connections.” (Rovere 1996 [1950], 132)
15. Begging the Question.
“In that direction,” the Cat said, waving its right paw round, “lives a Hatter: and in that
direction,” waving the other paw, “lives a March Hare. Visit either you like: they’re both
mad.”
“But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked.
“Oh, you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.”
“How do you know I’m mad?” said Alice.
“You must be,” said the Cat, “or you wouldn’t have come here.”
Alice didn’t think that proved it at all. (Carroll 1982 [1865], 64)

CHAPTER 3 - PREMISES AND CONCLUSION

Exercise 3.1
A. Determine which of the following are empirical statements.
1. Blue is the most popular color. - Empirical
2. Red is the color of grass. - Not empirical
3. According to the American Heart Association, “Coronary heart disease is
America’s No. 1 killer.” - Empirical
4. According to the American Association of Fried Food Lovers, high cholesterol
makes us healthy. - Not empirical
5. Cats and dogs make good pets. - Not empirical
6. My roommate says that I snore. - Empirical
7. My roommate says that there are humans on Mars. - Not empirical
8. There are plenty of spiders around. - Empirical
9. Spiders are arachnids, which are animals that have eight legs. - Empirical
10. According to Dr. Who, an independent psychologist in Macon, GA, everyone
should eat 30 large pizzas per day. - Not empirical
11. Spiders are very often poisonous. - Not entirely empirical
12. The items on the desk are pens. - Empirical
13. Pens are writing instruments made with ink inside a tube. - Empirical
14. According to the International Society of Astronomers, Pluto is a dwarf planet. -
Empirical
15. According to what is seen through the Hubble telescope, Pluto is smaller than
some asteroids. - Empirical
B. If each of the following were premises in an argument, which of them could be
assumed to pass the true premises test because they are uncontroversially true
empirical statements?
1. Blue is the most popular color. - Controversial
2. Red is the color of grass. - False (not empirical).
 3. According to the American Heart Association, “Coronary heart disease is
America’s No. 1 killer.” - Empirical statement
4. According to the American Association of Fried Food Lovers, high cholesterol
makes us healthy. - Controversial
5. Cats and dogs make good pets. - Controversial
6. My roommate says that I snore. - False (not empirical).
7. My roommate says that there are humans on Mars. - False (not true).
8. There are plenty of spiders around. - Empirical statement
9. Spiders are arachnids, which are animals that have eight legs. - Uncontroversially
true
10. “Abra Kadabra,” said Houdini, as he unlocked the chains on his arms. -
Controversial
11. Spiders are very often poisonous. - Controversial
12. Does your watch have a second hand? - question (not an empirical statement).
13. Your phone must be pretty old since it doesn’t have an alarm clock function. -
Controversial
14. Hooray! - Expression (not an empirical statement).
15. According to a renowned psychologist, women are from Venus, and men are from
Mars. - Controversial
C. Determine whether the following statements are testimonial statements.
1. The doctor said that she saw a broken bone on the X-ray. - Testimonial
2. According to the thermometer, it is five degrees Celsius. - Not testimonial
3. The witness claimed that the driver of the car didn’t brake before hitting the
pedestrian. - Testimonial
4. The food critic reported that the potatoes were salty. - Testimonial
5. My roommate says that there are humans on Mars. - Testimonial
6. Spiders are arachnids, which are animals that have eight legs. - Not testimonial
7. “Abra Kadabra,” said Houdini, as he unlocked the chains on his arms. -
Testimonial
8. Spiders are very often poisonous. - Not testimonial
9. Does your watch have a second hand? - Not testimonial
10. Your phone must be pretty old since it doesn’t have an alarm clock function. - Not
testimonial
11. My roommate says she saw a mouse in the dining hall last night. - Testimonial
12. My roommate claims that there are invisible winged horses in the dining hall. -
Testimonial
 13. According to the American Heart Association, “Coronary heart disease is
America’s No. 1 killer.” - Testimonial
14. According to the International Society of Astronomers, Pluto is a dwarf planet. -
Testimonial
15. According to what is seen through the Hubble telescope, Pluto is smaller than
some asteroids. - Testimonial

D. Look in your textbooks for your other courses. Provide (a) two examples of
uncontroversially true empirical statements and (b) two examples of testimonial
statements.
(a) Two Examples of Uncontroversially True Empirical Statements:

1. Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at standard atmospheric pressure.

2. The Earth orbits the Sun once every year.

(b) Two Examples of Testimonial Statements:

1. According to a recent study published in Nature, climate change is accelerating at

an unprecedented rate.
2. My history professor said that the Industrial Revolution began in the late 18th
century.

E. Determine whether the numbered statements are empirical statements. These

statements are from an article on autism in the journal Molecular Psychiatry.

[1] Autism/autistic disorder (MIM 209850) is a development disorder characterized

by three classes of symptoms including impairments in communication and
reciprocal social interactions, and repetitive or stereotyped behaviors and interests. →
Empirical Statement

[2] Twin studies have indicated that genetic factors play an important role in the
etiology of autism as the concordance rate for monozygotic twins is much higher
than that of dizygotic twins. → Empirical Statement
[3] In addition, family studies indicate that the recur-rence to siblings, estimated
from the multiple studies at 1–3%, is profoundly higher than the risk to the general
population, which has been estimated at ~0.5–2/1000. → Empirical Statement

[4] The mode of inheritance of autism appears complex and latent-class analy-ses
suggest that 3–10 genes may underlie the disorder, although analysis of one genome-
wide linkage has been used to suggest that at least 10 and as many as 100 genes
underlie the disorder.” (Buxbaum 2004, 144, material omitted) → Empirical
Statement

F. Explain whether and why the empirical statements in the following passage would
make good premises.

1. “The rhesus macaque is the unsung hero of the maternity ward.” → Not a
Good Premise: This is an opinion and not a verifiable fact.
2. “In 1940, Nobel laureate Karl Landsteiner and his student Alexander Weiner
discovered in this monkey a blood protein they called the Rh (for Rhesus)
factor.” → Good Premise: This is a historical fact that can be verified.
3. “Researchers soon found the Rh factor in some but not all humans and realized
that a mother could react immunologically against the factor in her fetus.” →
Good Premise: This is a verifiable statement based on research.
4. “Now a simple test and a vaccine prevent that reaction—and resulting mental
retardation or even death in about 20,000 U.S. newborns a year.” → Good
Premise: This is a factual statement supported by statistics.

EXERCISE 3.2

A. Determine which of the following are definitions.

1. Blue is the most popular color. - Not a definition

2. Red is the color of grass. - Not a definition
3. SCUBA means self-contained underwater body apparatus. - Definition
 4. According to the American Association of Fried Food Lovers, high cholesterol
makes us healthy. - Not a definition
5. Cats and dogs make good pets. - Not a definition
6. My roommate says that I snore. - Not a definition
7. My roommate says that there are humans on Mars. - Not a definition
8. There are plenty of spiders around. - Not a definition
9. Spiders are arachnids, which are animals that have eight legs. - Definition
10. According to Dr. Who, an independent psychologist in Macon, GA, everyone
should eat 30 large pizzas per day. - Not a definition
11. Spiders are very often poisonous. - Not a definition
12. The items on the desk are pens. - Not a definition
13. Pens are writing instruments made with ink inside a tube. - Definition
14. According to the International Society of Astronomers, Pluto is a dwarf planet. -
Not a definition
15. According to what is seen through the Hubble telescope, Pluto is smaller than
some asteroids. - Not a definition

B. If each of the following were premises in an argument, which of them could be

assumed to pass the true premises test because they are uncontroversially true definitional
statements?

1. Blue is the most popular color. → Not uncontroversially true

2. Green is the color of grass. → Uncontroversially true
3. According to the American Heart Association, “Coronary heart disease is
America’s No. 1 killer.” → Not uncontroversially true
4. According to the American Association of Fried Food Lovers, high cholesterol
makes us healthy. → Not uncontroversially true
5. Cats and dogs make good pets. → Not uncontroversially true
6. My roommate says that I snore. → Not uncontroversially true
7. My roommate says that there are humans on Mars. Not uncontroversially true
8. There are plenty of spiders around. → Not uncontroversially true
9. Spiders are arachnids, which are animals that have eight legs. →
Uncontroversially true
10. According to Dr. Nous, an independent psychologist in Macon, GA, everyone
should eat 30 large pizzas per day. → Not uncontroversially true
11. Spiders are very often poisonous. → Not uncontroversially true
 12. According to my dictionary, SCUBA means self-contained underwater body
apparatus. →Uncontroversially true
13. Your phone must be pretty old since it doesn’t have an alarm clock function.
→ Not uncontroversially true
14. “Abra Kadabra,” said Houdini, as he unlocked the chains on his arms. → Not
uncontroversially true
15. According to a renowned psychologist, women are from Venus and men are
from Mars. → Not uncontroversially true

C. Find two examples of uncontroversially true definitions in textbooks from your other
courses.

1. The cell is the basic structural, functional, and biological unit of all living
organisms.
2. A triangle is a polygon with three edges and three vertices.

D. Determine whether each of the following is an empirical statement or a definitional

statement. Of the empirical statements, which are testimonial? Then indicate which of the
statements would make good premises and why.

1. Sometimes the sun appears to be about a hundred yards off.

- Empirical Statement
- Testimonial
2. My roommate said that the sun was so bright today that it appeared to be about a
hundred yards away.
- Empirical Statement
- Testimonial
3. The sun is a star that provides light and heat to the planets in this solar system.
- Definitional Statement
4. According to my dictionary, a star is a heavenly body capable of core fusion.
- Type: Definitional Statement
5. A planet is a heavenly body not capable of core fusion, said Gibor Basri, an
astronomer at the University of California at Berkeley.
- Type: Definitional Statement
- Testimonial:
 6. According to the results of a Google search, Gibor Basri received a BS in Physics
from Stanford University in 1973, and a PhD in Astrophysics from the University
of Colorado, Boulder in 1979…
- Type: Empirical Statement
- Testimonial
● Analysis of Statements as Good Premises

Empirical Statements:

- 1 and 2: Could be premises, but they're based on personal observations,

which may not be universally reliable.
- 6: A strong premise because it contains verifiable information about Gibor
Basri's education.
- 7: Discusses diabetes and its impact, making it a solid premise for public
health arguments.

Definitional Statements:

- 3, 4, and 5: Clearly define key terms (sun, star, planet) and are well-
established, making them effective premises for supporting arguments.

E. Determine whether the numbered statements are empirical statements or definitional

statements. Of the empirical statements, which are testimonial? Then indicate which of
the statements would make good premises and why.

1. “Autism/autistic disorder (MIM 209850) is a development disorder characterized

by three classes of symptoms including impairments in communication and
reciprocal social interactions, and repetitive or stereotyped behaviors and
interests.”
- Definitional Statement
2. “Twin studies have indicated that genetic factors play an important role in the
etiology of autism as the concordance rate for monozygotic twins is much higher
than that of dizygotic twins.”
- Type: Empirical Statement
- Testimonial
3. “In addition, family studies indicate that the recurrence to siblings, estimated from
multiple studies at 1–3%, is profoundly higher than the risk to the general
population, which has been estimated at ~0.5–2/1000.”
- Type: Empirical Statement
 - Testimonial: Yes (based on research findings).
4. “The mode of inheritance of autism appears complex and latent-class analyses
suggest that 3–10 genes may underlie the disorder, although analysis of one
genome-wide linkage analysis has been used to suggest that at least 10 and as
many as 100 genes underlie the disorder.”
- Type: Empirical Statement
- Testimonial: Yes (based on genetic research).
● Analysis of Statements as Good Premises
- 1: A solid premise since it defines autism in a clear, accepted manner.
- 2, 3, and 4: All provide empirical evidence and findings from studies, making
them strong premises for arguments about the genetic and hereditary aspects of
autism.

F. Determine whether each of the following is an empirical statement, a testimonial

premise, or a definition. Indicate which of the statements would make good premises.

1. “The Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study was a national population-
based cross-sectional observational survey with 11,247 participants aged ≥25
years (mean age 50 years). Over 85% of the sample was born in Australia, New
Zealand or the UK, and over 94% spoke English as their first language.”
- Type: Empirical Statement
- Testimonial
- Good Premise
2. “The term basketry refers to woven textiles created manually without a frame or
loom.”
- Type: Definition
- Good Premise: Yes, as it clearly defines a term relevant to the discussion of
basketry.
3. “We observed 29 instances of wicker (FIG. 12), constituting 11.24% of the
basketry weaves.”
- Type: Empirical Statement
- Testimonial: Yes (based on specific observations).
- Good Premise: Yes, it provides data that supports conclusions about
basketry.
4. “A trichome is a hair-shaped outgrowth from the epidermis of a plant.”
- Type: Definition
- Good Premise: Yes, as it provides a clear and accepted definition.
 5. “Powerful storms have caused mass mortality of at least 10 Caribbean mangrove
forests during the past 50 years.”
- Type: Empirical Statement
- Testimonial: Yes (based on research findings).
- Good Premise: Yes, as it presents factual information relevant to
environmental studies.

EXERCISE 3.3

A. Identify the expert appealed to in each of the following passages and then identify the
claims made by the expert. Determine whether each of the claims can be assumed to pass
the true premises test.

1. Expert: Robynn Shrader, CEO of the National Cooperative Grocers Association

(NCGA).
Claim: The organic market has grown, leading to increased temptation for organic
fraud, and a new safety checkpoint program will empower retailers and reassure
organic consumers.
Assessment: The claim about the growth of the organic market and the program’s
benefits seems reasonable, assuming that Shrader, as an industry leader, has
expertise in the organic market. However, without external verification, the claim
may need further investigation to pass the true premises test.
2. Expert: Unspecified, likely the author of the document "Safety Net 2006."
Claim: Employees convicted of offenses related to controlled substances must be
suspended or dismissed after procedural compliance.
Assessment: This appears to be a policy statement rather than a factual claim
needing external verification, so it can pass the true premises test as it describes
procedural rules.
3. Expert: Stanley (2006).
Claim: The book is outstanding, with user-friendly essays and a glossary.
Assessment: This is a subjective opinion rather than a verifiable fact, so it doesn't
pass or fail the true premises test—it’s more about personal judgment.
4. Expert: Nielsen Company.
Claim: In Q1 2010, the average 18- to 24-year-old watched more than 28 hours of
TV per week.
Assessment: The claim is based on Nielsen’s research, a reputable source for TV
viewing data. This likely passes the true premises test, assuming Nielsen’s
methods are sound.
5. Expert: Henderson-King (2000).
Claim: A liberal arts education is associated with increased humanitarianism, civic
responsibility, and tolerance of diversity.
Assessment: This claim is broad and would require research evidence to verify,
but it may pass the true premises test if backed by studies from credible sources.
6. Expert: Kareklas (2013).
Claim: The stratum corneum is the outermost layer of skin.
Assessment: This is a scientific fact, likely passing the true premises test given
Kareklas' expertise.
7. Expert: Kareklas (2013).
Claim: Submersion in water causes wrinkles on glabrous skin (hands and feet).
Assessment: This is a well-established scientific fact and likely passes the true
premises test.
8. Expert: Steven Q. Andrews, an independent environmental consultant.
Claim: The Chinese government understates the severity of pollution, and the U.S.
Embassy’s assessments are more accurate.
Assessment: This claim would require further evidence to pass the true premises
test, as it involves competing interpretations of data.
9. Expert: A Bayer representative.
Claim: Aspirin is effective against the common cold because 95% of users believe
it is.
Assessment: This claim fails the true premises test because user opinion does not
constitute scientific evidence of effectiveness.
10. Expert: Bourdieu (1977), as cited by Ross (1999).
Claim: Schools perpetuate inequality by rewarding the culture of the dominant
class.
Assessment: This is a theoretical claim based on sociological analysis, and
whether it passes the true premises test depends on supporting research.
11. Expert: Raphael (1996a, 2000), as cited by Scott (2002).
Claim: As welfare recipients move into the labor market, they may become more
dependent on abusive partners.
Assessment: This claim is part of social theory and may pass the true premises test
if supported by research evidence.
12. Expert: J.R.R. Tolkien.
Claim: A hobbit lived in a comfortable hole in the ground.
Assessment: This is a fictional statement and doesn’t apply to the true premises
test, as it’s part of a literary work.
 13. Expert: Louis Pasteur, as cited by Levenstein (2012).
Claim: Pasteur’s germ theory of disease led to vaccines and antiseptic procedures,
while also fostering fears about industrial food.
Assessment: The historical claim about Pasteur’s work is true and likely passes the
true premises test.
14. Expert: Brad Feldman, EmSence Corp.
Claim: Voters’ brain activity showed they liked Mitt Romney’s healthcare
comment.
Assessment: This claim is based on specific brain-monitoring technology, and
whether it passes the true premises test would depend on the validity of the
technology used.
15. Expert: Alex Lundry, research director for TargetPoint.
Claim: People often say one thing in focus groups and do another in the voting
booth.
Assessment: This is a generalization based on experience in campaign strategy and
likely passes the true premises test if backed by research on voter behavior.

B. Determine whether each of the following would be a good premise and why or why
not. Explicitly use the guidelines discussed above. To do some of these exercises, you
will need to find and consult the citations page of this book.

1. Premise: There are at least five planets visible to the naked eye.
Assessment: This is a good premise. It is a widely accepted astronomical fact,
easily verifiable through scientific observation. It passes the true premises test.
2. Premise: “The subprime mortgage crisis has been a financial disaster for much of
Wall Street” wrote Kate Kelly, reporter for the Wall Street Journal. (Kelly 2007,
A1)
Assessment: This is a good premise. The Wall Street Journal is a reputable
source, and Kate Kelly is a credible reporter. The premise can be assumed to pass
the true premises test because it is based on informed financial reporting.
3. Premise: According to my neighbor who watched the nightly news last night, the
subprime mortgage crisis has been a financial disaster.
Assessment: This is not a good premise. The neighbor's information is second-
hand, and there is no guarantee that they are reliable or accurately understood the
news. This fails the true premises test due to lack of credibility.
4. Premise: Kate Kelly, of the Wall Street Journal, reported that “Mr. Blankfein is
set to be paid close to $70 million this year, according to one person familiar with
the matter.” (Kelly 2007, A1)
 Assessment: This is a mixed premise. While Kate Kelly and the Wall Street
Journal are credible, the use of “one person familiar with the matter” as the source
weakens the claim. It might pass the true premises test, but it requires more
reliable verification.
5. Premise: Should Kate Kelly accept the claim about Blankfein’s salary based on
the testimony of “one person familiar with the matter”?
Assessment: No, this would not be a strong premise. Relying on a single
anonymous source is risky, especially without further corroboration. The premise
fails the true premises test due to weak sourcing.
6. Premise: Use the material from Exercise 3.2 A.14 above (about brain activity
during a presidential debate).
Assessment: This is not a good premise. The claim relies on brain-monitoring
technology and interpretations that may be speculative or unreliable without more
data. It would not easily pass the true premises test due to the complexity and
potential for misinterpretation.
7. Premise: Use the material from Exercise 3.2 A.15 above (about people saying one
thing in focus groups and doing another in voting booths).
Assessment: This is a reasonably good premise. The expert (Alex Lundry) works
in campaign strategy, a relevant field, and the claim is plausible based on
documented discrepancies in human behavior. It could pass the true premises test
with some degree of caution.
8. Premise: “The term basketry refers to woven textiles created manually without a
frame or loom.” (Berman 2000, 422)
Assessment: This is a good premise. It is a clear, factual statement from a credible
source (Berman, 2000) and likely passes the true premises test.
9. Premise: “We observed 29 instances of wicker (FIG. 12), constituting 11.24% of
the basketry weaves.” (Berman 2000, 427)
Assessment: This is a good premise. It is based on direct observation and data.
Assuming the study was conducted properly, it passes the true premises test.
10. Premise: A trichome is a hair-shaped outgrowth from the epidermis of a plant.
Assessment: This is a good premise. It is a biological fact that can be easily
verified and passes the true premises test.
11. Premise: “Powerful storms have caused mass mortality of at least 10 Caribbean
mangrove forests during the past 50 years.” (Cahoon 2003, 1094)
Assessment: This is a good premise. The statement is based on scientific research
(Cahoon 2003) and likely passes the true premises test as long as the study is
credible.
 12. Premise: “A liberal arts education is associated with an increase in
humanitarianism and a sense of civic responsibility…” (Henderson-King 2000,
142)
Assessment: This is a reasonably good premise. The statement is based on
sociological research, but because it involves correlation, further evidence may be
needed to fully confirm it. It likely passes the true premises test but could benefit
from more support.
13. Premise: “The landscape, when considered through a contemporary aesthetic lens,
is already a cultural ‘sculptural’ form…” (Tilley 2000, 36)
Assessment: This is a subjective premise, based on interpretation rather than fact.
It doesn’t lend itself to the true premises test because it reflects a personal or
cultural perspective.
14. Premise: George Clooney spoke to the United Nations in 2006, asking for help in
Darfur.
Assessment: This is a factual premise that can be verified through research. If
Clooney's speech was recorded and documented, it passes the true premises test.
15. Premise: Mr. Smith’s opinion about a musician’s contract case (outside of his
expertise in criminal law).
Assessment: This is not a good premise. Mr. Smith is an expert in criminal law,
not contract law. His statement about the contract case would not be reliable or
authoritative, so it fails the true premises test.

D. Identify the four empirical statements and two definitions in the following passage.

1. Empirical Statements

- "In the 1990s, however, a remarkable series of discoveries made it [the conventional
definition of a planet] untenable."

- "Beyond the orbit of Neptune, astronomers found hundreds of icy worlds, some quite
large, occupying a doughnut-shaped region called the Kuiper belt."

- "Around scores of other stars, they found other planets, many of whose orbits look
nothing like those in our solar system."

- "They discovered brown dwarfs, which blur the distinction between planet and star."

2. Definitions
- "Most of us grew up with the conventional definition of a planet as a body that orbits a
star, shines by reflecting the star’s light and is larger than an asteroid."

- "The International Astronomical Union (IAU) [...] defined a planet as an object that
orbits a star, is large enough to have settled into a round shape and, crucially, ‘has cleared
the neighborhood around its orbit.’"

E. Evaluate the premises in the standardized argument, below, based on the following
passage.

Premise 1:

“Less than a decade ago, the biggest problem in global health seemed to be the lack of
resources available to combat the multiple scourges ravaging the world’s poor and
sick.”

Premise 2:

“Today, thanks to a recent extraordinary and unprecedented rise in public and private
giving, more money is being directed toward pressing health challenges than ever
before.”

Conclusion:

“Experts in global health believe we are making progress on the problem of global
health.”

EXERCISE 3.4

A. Arrange the following statements from weakest to strongest.

1. It may rain tomorrow.

● This is the weakest statement, as it merely suggests the possibility of rain without
implying any likelihood.
2. It will probably rain tomorrow.
● This indicates a greater likelihood than the first statement, suggesting more than a
50% chance of rain but still leaving room for uncertainty.
3. It is almost certain to rain tomorrow.
● This is a stronger statement
4. It will rain tomorrow.
 ● This is a definitive statement, expressing complete certainty that it will rain.
5. It is nearly impossible that it will rain tomorrow.
● This is a strong statement

B. For each of the following, determine whether the scope and strength of the

conclusions are warranted.

1. Five Green Party members from France

Conclusion: Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney are likely from France.
Evaluation: The sample size (five members) is too small and specific to justify a
conclusion about all members of the Green Party, especially two prominent American
members. This conclusion is not warranted due to an overgeneralization from a limited
sample.

2. Dr. Dominose's research on nutritional needs

Conclusion: Everyone should eat 30 pizzas per day.

Evaluation: The conclusion overgeneralizes findings about people weighing over 500
pounds to the entire population. The claim is much broader than the premise supports, so
this conclusion is not warranted.

3. Early SARS cases in China

Conclusion: There will be a SARS epidemic of tremendous proportions.

Evaluation: A few early cases do not guarantee a large-scale epidemic. The conclusion
assumes that early reports directly lead to a global crisis, which is an overstatement based
on limited data. Thus, this conclusion is not warranted.

4. Girls and cheerleading in middle school

Conclusion: Congruity exists between peer groups and social status of activities like
cheerleading.
Evaluation: This conclusion is limited in scope and focuses on a specific social dynamic.
The conclusion is reasonable as it matches the premise and is not overly broad. Thus, this
conclusion is warranted.

5. Taiwan conflict involving the U.S.

Conclusion: Any war between China and Taiwan could easily involve the United States.
Evaluation: The premise refers to historical evidence and legal stipulations (Taiwan
Relations Act), so the conclusion is logically supported and reasonable. Therefore, the
conclusion is warranted.

6. Condo assessments

Conclusion: I shouldn’t buy a condo because I don’t want to pay $300 or more in
assessments.
Evaluation: The premise is based on limited personal experience with only three condos,
so it may not be representative of all condos. However, if the person values avoiding high
assessments, the personal decision is warranted, though the generalization about all
condos may not be.

7. Scientologists among movie stars

Conclusion: All movie stars are Scientologists.

Evaluation: The conclusion is an overgeneralization based on two individuals. It is not
reasonable to extend this claim to all movie stars without further evidence. Thus, this
conclusion is not warranted.

8. Flax seed health benefits

Conclusion: Moderately include flax seed in your diet.

Evaluation: The premise provides several specific health benefits of flax seed, supported
by research. The recommendation to include it moderately aligns with the evidence
presented, making the conclusion reasonable and warranted.

9. Photographic chemical smell

Conclusion: Likely, anyone you meet will think the smell is bad.
Evaluation: While personal and anecdotal, the conclusion is a reasonable extension of
common experience among those familiar with the chemical. Still, it's not universally
guaranteed that everyone would share the same reaction. The conclusion is somewhat
warranted but not absolute.

10. Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce

Conclusion: It is certain that your marriage will end in divorce.

Evaluation: This conclusion is overly deterministic, assuming that all marriages face the
same probability of ending in divorce. The premise provides a statistical likelihood, but
certainty for an individual case cannot be inferred. This conclusion is not warranted.

11. Welfare reform and violent men

Conclusion: Dependencies on violent men could be exacerbated by welfare reform

changes.
Evaluation: The premise acknowledges prior dependencies and suggests that welfare
changes may worsen these dependencies for some women. The conclusion is cautious,
reflecting a possibility rather than a certainty. It is a reasonable and warranted conclusion.

12. Wrinkled fingers improve handling submerged objects

Conclusion: Wrinkles may be an adaptation for handling objects in wet conditions.

Evaluation: The conclusion is based on experimental findings that support the idea of
improved handling with wrinkled fingers in water. The conclusion is a hypothesis, not an
absolute fact, but it aligns with the evidence. Therefore, it is warranted.

CHAPTER 5: PROPOSITIONAL ARGUMENT

EXERCISE 5.1

1. Simple: This is a straightforward statement expressing a single idea.

2. Simple: A statement about the extinction of dinosaurs.
3. Compound (Negation): This is a negation because it denies that Joi likes Pepsi.
4. Compound (Disjunction, Inclusive): This is a disjunction, and it is inclusive
because Francis may have had either milk, juice, or both.
5. Compound (Disjunction, Exclusive): This is an exclusive disjunction because
David cannot be on both floors at the same time.
6. Compound (Negation): This is a negation of the statement "everyone likes
baseball."
7. Simple: This is a statement listing the possible states of matter but is not a
compound sentence.
8. Simple: Despite its complexity, this is a single explanatory statement.
9. Compound: This is a compound sentence containing two related clauses
connected by "and," but it's not a disjunction or negation.
10. Compound (Negation): This contains a negation, as it denies that the spaces
between energy levels are equal.
 11. Compound: This is a compound sentence with two parts connected by "and." It
also includes a negation ("I am not at all tired").
12. Compound: This is a conditional compound sentence, as it includes the condition
"if you make haste."
13. Compound: This is a compound sentence with multiple clauses connected by
"and" and "except when."
14. Compound: This is a compound sentence containing multiple clauses and
comparisons, but it's not a disjunction or negation.
15. Simple: This is a simple statement expressing a single idea.

EXERCISE 5.2

A. Indicate whether each of the following statements is simple or compound. If it’s

a compound statement, indicate whether it’s a negation, a disjunction, a
conjunction, and/or a conditional. If it’s a disjunction, indicate whether it’s
inclusive or exclusive.

1. Compound (Conditional)

2. Simple

3. Compound (Conjunction)

4.Compound (Conditional)

5. Simple

6. Compound (Conditional)

7. Simple

8. Compound (Conjunction)

9. Compound (Disjunction, Inclusive)

10. Simple

11.Compound (Negation + Conjunction)

12. Compound (Conditional)

13. Compound (Conjunction)

14. Simple

15. Simple

C. Determine whether each of the following sentences is a simple statement, a

com-pound statement, or an argument. If it’s an argument, indicate the premise(s)
and the conclusion. If it’s a compound statement, indicate whether it’s a negation,
a dis-junction, a conjunction, and/or a conditional. If it’s a disjunction, indicate
whether it’s inclusive or exclusive.

1. Argument:

- Premise: It’s raining.

- Conclusion: Carry an umbrella.

2. Compound (Conditional)

3. Compound (Disjunction, Inclusive)

4. Argument:

- Premise: Wood scratches.

- Conclusion: Metal is a better material for desks.

5. Simple

6. Compound (Conjunction)

7. Argument:

- Premises: The costs of cell phone services have decreased, and areas with
coverage have increased.

- Conclusion: There is less reason to ever use a coin phone.

8. Compound (Conditional)
 9. Compound (Conjunction + Exception)

10. Simple

11. Compound (Conjunction)

12. Simple

13. Compound (Conditional + Conjunction)

14. Compound (Conjunction)

15. Simple

EXERCISE 5.3

Indicate whether each of the following passages contains an argument or argu-

ments. If one or more arguments are present, indicate their form: denying a
disjunct, affirming an inclusive disjunct, affirming an exclusive disjunct, or some
other form. If a disjunction is present, indicate whether or not it’s a false
dichotomy.

1. Neither Argument nor Compound Statement: This is a question, not an argument

or a compound statement.

2.Argument (Conditional):

- Premise: You’re sure to step on a crack.

- Conclusion: Your mother’s back is toast.

3. Argument (Denying a Disjunct, Exclusive Disjunction):

- Premise: It can’t be Bach because there’s an electric guitar.

- Conclusion: It must be Mozart.

4. Argument (Denying a Disjunct, Exclusive Disjunction):

- Premise: They aren’t in the kitchen.

 - Conclusion: I’d better check the car.

5. Argument (Affirming an Exclusive Disjunct):

- Premise: Emily always has milk.

- Conclusion: She didn’t have juice.

6. Neither Argument nor Compound Statement: This is a question, not an argument

or a compound statement.

7. Argument (Affirming an Exclusive Disjunct):

- Premise: Ceelay took Biology 101.

- Conclusion: She didn’t take Chemistry 101.

8. Argument (Denying a Disjunct, Exclusive Disjunction):

- Premise: Laura didn’t take Biology.

- Conclusion: She must have taken Chemistry.

9. Argument (Exclusive Disjunction):

- Premise: Either the man is dead or the watch has stopped.

- Conclusion: Implied (one of the two must be true).

10. Neither Argument nor Compound Statement: This is a report, not an argument
or compound statement.

11. Neither Argument nor Compound Statement: This is a description of the

technological situation in Japan, not an argument.

12. Argument (Affirming an Exclusive Disjunct):

- Premise: The issue is framed as a question of freedom or slavery.

- Conclusion: Implied — the colonies should take up arms (for freedom).

13. Argument:

- Premises: Observations about uranium salts emitting light and creating

photos even after they stopped glowing.

- Conclusion: Becquerel discovered radioactivity.

14. Argument (Process of Elimination):

- Premise: Holmes observed dirt and stamps.

- Conclusion: Watson sent a telegram.

15. Argument (Conditional):

- Premise: If we are truly created equal, then love must also be equal.

- Conclusion: Our journey is not complete until equality is achieved.

EXERCISE 5.4

1. If Tyler gets an A on the final, he’ll pass the course, and I’m sure he’ll get an A
on the final. So Tyler will pass the course.

Argument (Affirming the Antecedent):

- Form: Affirming the antecedent.

- Validity: Valid (the conclusion follows logically from the premises).

2. If Bobby doesn’t come to class, Laura will be upset. But Bobby will come to
class, so Kartik won’t be upset.

Argument (Denying the Antecedent):

- Form: Denying the antecedent.

- Validity: Invalid (the conclusion about Kartik’s feelings does not logically
follow from the premises).
 3. If Anthony takes the job as a financial consultant, he’ll have to move to New
Jersey. He’ll never move to New Jersey, so he’ll never take the job.

Argument (Denying the Consequent):

- Form: Denying the consequent.

- Validity: Valid (the conclusion logically follows from the premises).

4. If hell freezes over, then the Atlanta Falcons will win the Super Bowl, and if
they win the Super Bowl, then I’m a monkey. That means that if hell freezes over,
then I’m a monkey.

Argument (Hypothetical Syllogism):

- Form: Hypothetical syllogism (if A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C).

- Validity: Valid (the conclusion logically follows from the premises).

5. If Bobby doesn’t come to class, Laura will be upset. But Bobby will come to
class, so Laura won’t be upset.

Argument (Denying the Antecedent):

- Form: Denying the antecedent.

- Validity: Invalid (the conclusion does not logically follow).

6. That dome must be made of gold or bronze, but gold is way too expensive to be
used to cover such a large surface, so it must be made of bronze.

Argument (Denying a Disjunct):

- Form: Denying a disjunct.

- Validity: Valid (the conclusion logically follows from the premises).

7. If Keela gets a set of Volrath pans for Christmas, she’ll be thrilled. And I bet
she’d cook us up some really good stuff to eat. We should get her those pans.

Argument (Affirming the Antecedent):

 - Form: Affirming the antecedent.

- Validity: Valid (the conclusion is a suggestion based on the premises).

8. If ’twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe, then Jay
has slain the Jabberwock. ’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in
the wabe. Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
Jay slew the Jabberwock!

Argument (Affirming the Antecedent):

- Form: Affirming the antecedent.

- Validity: Valid (the conclusion logically follows from the premises).

9. “Federal prosecutors will probably call a former doctor for Barry Bonds as a
witness if Bonds’s perjury and obstruction of justice case goes to trial, according to
court documents made public Thursday.” (Schmidt 2007, C13)

Neither Argument nor Compound Statement: This is a statement of potential

future action based on a condition but does not present a clear argument.

10. 1. We are sometimes mistaken in our perceptual beliefs. 2. If we are

sometimes mistaken in our perceptual beliefs, then it is always logically possible
that our perceptual beliefs are false. 3. If it is always logically possible that our
perceptual beliefs are false, then we never know that any of our perceptual beliefs
are true. Therefore, 4. We never know that any of our perceptual beliefs are true.
(Cornman 1992, 48)

Argument (Hypothetical Syllogism):

- Form: Hypothetical syllogism.

- Validity: Valid (the conclusion follows logically from the premises).

11. “Opponents of channelizing natural streams emphasize that the practice is

antithetical to the production of fish and wetland wildlife and, furthermore, the
stream suffers from extensive aesthetic degradation.” (Keller 2005, 225)
 Argument (Two Premises Leading to an Implicit Conclusion):

- Form: Implied argument (arguing against channelizing streams).

- Validity: Valid (the conclusion about the negative effects is supported by the
premises).

12. “If Bonds and Clemens had not been linked to performance-enhancing drugs,
they would sail through the voting process [for election to the Baseball Hall of
Fame] and maybe challenge Tom Seaver’s record of being named on 98.84 percent
of the ballots. But because they have been accused of using illegal drugs to
enhance their performances, the path to Cooperstown, N.Y., will be littered with
endless debates.” (Curry 2007, C12)

Argument (Affirming the Antecedent):

- Form: Affirming the antecedent.

- Validity: Valid (the conclusion logically follows from the premises).

13. U.S. citizens do not need a visa to visit Germany, but they do need one to visit
Algeria.

Neither Argument nor Compound Statement: This is a statement of fact without

any argumentation.

14. “Walk down the hall in any building on your campus where professors have
their offices... What you are more likely to see in the halls of your classroom
building are men and women hard at work.” (Salkind 2006, 1)

Neither Argument nor Compound Statement: This is a descriptive observation

about professors and does not present an argument.

15. “Today, the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any
other advanced industrial country... But while a 12th-grade education might have
sufficed a century ago, it doesn’t today.” (Stiglitz 2013)

Argument (Implied Conclusion):

 - Form: Implied argument (discussing the need for increased access to higher
education).

- Validity: Valid (the conclusion about the need for change in education access
follows from the premises).

CHAPTER 6

Ex 6.1:

1. All people under 65 years of age are people who need health insurance.
Type: UA
Quantity: Universal
Quality: Affirmative
Standard Form: All S are P
Subject and Predicate: Subject: People under 65 years of age,
Predicate: People who need health
insurance

2. All people 65 years old and older are people covered by Medicare.
Type: UA
Quantity: Universal
Quality: Affirmative
Standard Form: All S are P
Subject and Predicate: Subject: People 65 years old and older,
Predicate: People covered by Medicare

3. All able-bodied people younger than 65 years old are not people covered by Medicare.
Type: UN
Quantity: Universal
Quality: Negative
Standard Form: No S are P
Subject and Predicate: Subject: Able-bodied people younger
than 65 years old, Predicate: People
covered by Medicare

4. Some people who work are not people covered by health insurance.
Type: PN
Quantity: Particular
 Quality: Negative
Standard Form: Some S are not P
Subject and Predicate: Subject: People who work, Predicate:
People covered by health insurance

5. Some airline pilots are people in favor of extra screening of passengers who carry
liquids on board the airplane.
Type: PA
Quantity: Particular
Quality: Affirmative
Standard Form: Some S are P
Subject and Predicate: Subject: Airline pilots, Predicate:
People in favor of extra screening of
passengers who carry liquids on board
the airplane

6. All people who fly are people who are willing to undergo extra screening to increase
airport security.
Type: UA
Quantity: Universal
Quality: Affirmative
Standard Form: All S are P
Subject and Predicate: Subject: People who fly, Predicate:
People willing to undergo extra
screening to increase airport security

7. Some airport personnel are temporary employees without benefits.

Type: PA
Quantity: Particular
Quality: Affirmative
Standard Form: Some S are P
Subject and Predicate: Subject: Airport personnel, Predicate:
Temporary employees without benefits

8. All broadcast media are recently developed technologies whose long-term effects are
good and ill.
Type: UA
Quantity: Universal
Quality: Affirmative
Standard Form: All S are P
 Subject and Predicate: Subject: Broadcast media, Predicate:
Recently developed technologies
whose long-term effects are good and
ill

9. All of James's friends are people he has met at school.

Type: UA
Quantity: Universal
Quality: Affirmative
Standard Form: All S are P
Subject and Predicate: Subject: James’s friends, Predicate:
People he has met at school

10. Some of Theresa’s friends are people she works with at the credit union.
Type: PA
Quantity: Particular
Quality: Affirmative
Standard Form: Some S are P
Subject and Predicate: Subject: Theresa’s friends, Predicate:
People she works with at the credit
union

11. Some of the people who work at the credit union are people who go to school with
James.
Type: PA
Quantity: Particular
Quality: Affirmative
Standard Form: Some S are P
Subject and Predicate: Subject: People who work at the credit
union, Predicate: People who go to
school with James

12. Not all Americans have health insurance.

Type: PN
Quantity: Particular
Quality: Negative
Standard Form: Some S are not P
Subject and Predicate: Subject: Americans, Predicate: People
who have health insurance
13. Those who are without insurance don’t benefit much from advances in cancer care
that are predicated on early discovery and treatment. (Boston Globe 2007)
Type: UN
Quantity: Universal
Quality: Negative
Standard Form: No S are P
Subject and Predicate: Subject: People without insurance,
Predicate: People who benefit much
from advances in cancer care

14. Many healthcare advocates would prefer one in which the state provides insurance for
everybody. (Boston Globe 2007)
Type: PA
Quantity: Particular
Quality: Affirmative
Standard Form: Some S are P
Subject and Predicate: Subject: Healthcare advocates,
Predicate: People who prefer state-
provided insurance for everybody

15. People on Medicaid, the federal/state system for poor Americans, do not have as high
survival rates as those with employer-sponsored insurance. (Boston Globe 2007)
Type: UN
Quantity: Universal
Quality: Negative
Standard Form: No S are P
Subject and Predicate: Subject: People on Medicaid,
Predicate: People who have as high
survival rates as those with employer-
sponsored insurance

Ex 6.2: A
1. Not all students in college are sophomores.

 Standard form: Some students in college are not sophomores.

 Categorical form: Particular Negative (PN)

2. Any students who are sophomores aren't graduating.

 Standard form: No sophomores are students who are graduating.

 Categorical form: Universal Negative (UN)
3. If the moon were destroyed, the earth would have many tidal waves.

 Standard form: All times when the moon is destroyed are times when the earth has
many tidal waves. (UA)

4. If people are eligible for Medicare, they don’t need their own health
insurance.

 Standard form: All people who are eligible for Medicare are not people who need
their own health insurance.
 Categorical form: Universal Affirmative (UA)

5. Every citizen has health insurance.

 Standard form: All citizens are people who have health insurance.
 Categorical form: Universal Affirmative (UA)

6. When it rains, it pours.

 Standard form: (This is an idiomatic expression that doesn’t fit neatly into
categorical form.)

7. Polar bears live in northern climates.

 Standard form: All polar bears are animals that live in northern climates.
 Categorical form: Universal Affirmative (UA)

8. This has been a long day.

 Standard form: All days that are today are days that have been long ( UA)

9. When it's raining, almost everyone carries an umbrella.

 Standard form: Some people who experience rain are people who carry an
umbrella.
 Categorical form: Particular Affirmative (PA)

10. Because wood scratches, [metal is a better material for desks].

 Standard form: No materials that scratch easily are better materials for desks.
 Categorical form: Universal Negative (UN)

11. The costs of cell phone services have decreased and areas with coverage have
increased so that [now there’s no reason to ever use a pay phone].
 Standard form: No people who have access to cell phone coverage are people who
have reason to use a pay phone.

 Categorical form: Universal Negative (UN)

12. Some people mistakenly believe that there are no universal moral principles.

 Standard form: Some people are people who mistakenly believe that there are no
universal moral principles.

 Categorical form: Particular Affirmative (PA)

13. Only those who complete 120 credit hours graduate from college.

 Standard form: All people who graduate from college are people who complete
120 credit hours.

 Categorical form: Universal Affirmative (UA)

14. Not everyone believes that there are no universal moral principles.

 Standard form: Some people are people who believe that there are universal moral
principles.

 Categorical form: Particular Affirmative (PA)

15. At least one furlough day per month is required for all state employees.

 Standard form: All state employees are people who are required to take at least
one furlough day per month.

 Categorical form: Universal Affirmative (UA)

B.

Ex

6.3:
1. (1) UA: All Americans over 65 are protected by Medicare.
Therefore,

(2) It is false that PN: Some Americans over 65 aren’t protected by Medicare.
Form: Valid
2. (1) PA: Some people on Social Security are young people who became disabled in
a car accident.
Therefore,

(2) It is false that UN: All people on Social Security aren’t young.
Form: Valid
3. (1) UA: All students who are freshmen are students who live on campus.
Therefore,

(2) It is false that PN: Some students who are freshmen aren’t students who live on
campus.
Form: Valid
4. (1) It is false that UA: All students who are freshmen are students who live on
campus.
Therefore,

(2) PN: Some students who are freshmen are students who don’t live on campus.
Form: Valid
5. (1) UA: All students who attend college are people who have paid fees to use the
library.
Therefore,

(2) It is false that PN: Some students who attend college aren’t people who have
paid fees to use the library.
Form: Valid
6. (1) PA: Some college students are football players.
Therefore,

(2) It is false that UN: Some college students aren’t football players.
Form: Valid
7. (1) PN: Some college students aren’t football players.
Therefore,

(2) PA: Some college students are football players.

Form: Valid
8. (1) It is false that UN: All college students aren’t in the military.
Therefore,

(2) PA: Some college students are in the military.

Form: Valid
9. (1) PA: Some food in the dining hall is organic.
Therefore,
(2) It is false that UN: All food in the dining hall isn’t organic.
Form: Valid.

10. (1) PA: Some food that is good for you is organic.
Therefore,

(2) It is false that UN: All food that is good for you isn’t organic.
Form: Valid.

11. (1) UN: It’s not true that all salespeople are not capable of selling products they
don’t believe in.
Therefore,

(2) PA: Some salespeople are capable of selling products they don’t believe in.
Form: Valid.

12. (1) PA: Many people suffer from the common cold each year.
Therefore,

(2) It is false that UN: No one suffers from the common cold each year.
Form: Valid.

13. (1) It is false that UN: No one suffers from the common cold each year.
Therefore,

(2) UN: There’s no vaccination for the common cold.

Form: Invalid.

14. (1) UA: Antibiotics are prescribed for individuals with cold symptoms only if a
doctor believes an individual has a bacterial infection.
Therefore,

(2) It is false that PN: Some antibiotics prescribed for cold symptoms aren’t for
people with bacterial infections.
Form: Valid.

15. (1) UA: All pandas live in zoos throughout the world.
Therefore,
 (2) It is false that PN: Some pandas don’t live in zoos throughout the world.
Form: Valid.

Ex 6.4: A
1. Some pandas are animals that live in the wild.
 (a) Contradictory of statement 1: No pandas are animals that live in the wild.
 (b) Converse of statement 1: Some animals that live in the wild are pandas.
 (c) Complement of the predicate category of statement 1: Non-animals-that-live-
in-the-wild.
 (d) Obverse of statement 1: Some pandas are not non-animals that live in the wild.
 (e) Complement of the subject category of statement 1: Some non-pandas are
animals that live in the wild.
 (f) Contrapositive of statement 1: Some non-animals-that-live-in-the-wild are not
non-pandas.

2. Some vaccines are not for the common cold.

 (a) Contradictory of statement 2: All vaccines are for the common cold.
 (b) Converse of statement 2: Some things that are not for the common cold are
vaccines.
 (c) Complement of the predicate category of statement 2: Non-for-the-common-
cold.
 (d) Obverse of statement 2: Some vaccines are for things that are not non-common
cold.
 (e) Complement of the subject category of statement 2: Some non-vaccines are not
for the common cold.
 (f) Contrapositive of statement 2: Some things that are for the common cold are
not non-vaccines.

3. All cultural minorities are groups that need special rights.

 (a) Contradictory of statement 3: Some cultural minorities are not groups that need
special rights.
 (b) Converse of statement 3: All groups that need special rights are cultural
minorities.
 (c) Complement of the predicate category of statement 3: Non-groups-that-need-
special-rights.
 (d) Obverse of statement 3: No cultural minorities are groups that don’t need
special rights.
 (e) Complement of the subject category of statement 3: All non-cultural minorities
are groups that need special rights.
 (f) Contrapositive of statement 3: All groups that don’t need special rights are not
cultural minorities.
4. All bones are not made of cardiac tissue.
 (a) Contradictory of statement 4: Some bones are body parts made of cardiac
tissue.
 (b) Converse of statement 4: All body parts made of cardiac tissue are not bones.
 (c) Complement of the predicate category of statement 4: Non-body-parts-made-
of-cardiac-tissue.
 (d) Obverse of statement 4: All bones are non-body-parts-made-of-cardiac-tissue.
 (e) Complement of the subject category of statement 4: Non-bones.
 (f) Contrapositive of statement 4: All non-body-parts-made-of-cardiac-tissue are
not non-bones.

5. All learned behavior is the result of experience.

 (a) Contradictory of statement 5: Some learned behavior is not the result of
experience.
 (b) Converse of statement 5: All results of experience are learned behavior.
 (c) Complement of the predicate category of statement 5: Non-result-of-
experience.
 (d) Obverse of statement 5: No learned behavior is not the result of experience.
 (e) Complement of the subject category of statement 5: All unlearned behavior is
the result of experience.
 (f) Contrapositive of statement 5: All things that are not the result of experience
are not learned behavior.

Phần B

1. Some pandas are animals that live in the wild.

 (a) Contradictory: Invalid.
 (b) Converse: Valid. Form 10 (Conversion of PA).
 (c) Complement of the predicate category: No statement was produced.
 (d) Obverse: Valid. Form 15 (Obversion of PA).
 (e) Complement of the subject category: No statement was produced.
 (f) Contrapositive: Invalid.

2. Some vaccines are not for the common cold.

 (a) Contradictory: Invalid.
 (b) Converse: Valid. Form 12 (Conversion of PN).
 (c) Complement of the predicate category: No statement was produced.
 (d) Obverse: Valid. Form 16 (Obversion of PN).
 (e) Complement of the subject category: No statement was produced.
 (f) Contrapositive: Invalid.

3. All cultural minorities are groups that need special rights.

 (a) Contradictory: Invalid.
  (b) Converse: Valid. Form 9 (Conversion of UA).
 (c) Complement of the predicate category: No statement was produced.
 (d) Obverse: Valid. Form 13 (Obversion of UA).
 (e) Complement of the subject category: No statement was produced.
 (f) Contrapositive: Valid. Form 11 (Contraposition of UA).

4. All bones are not made of cardiac tissue.

 (a) Contradictory: Invalid.
 (b) Converse: Valid. Form 9 (Conversion of UA).
 (c) Complement of the predicate category: No statement was produced.
 (d) Obverse: Valid. Form 14 (Obversion of UN).
 (e) Complement of the subject category: No statement was produced.
 (f) Contrapositive: Invalid.

5. All learned behavior is the result of experience.

 (a) Contradictory: Invalid.
 (b) Converse: Valid. Form 9 (Conversion of UA).
 (c) Complement of the predicate category: No statement was produced.
 (d) Obverse: Valid. Form 13 (Obversion of UA).
 (e) Complement of the subject category: No statement was produced.
 (f) Contrapositive: Valid. Form 11 (Contraposition of UA).

Phần C.

1. PA
(1) Some G1 are G2.
Therefore,
(2) Some G2 are G1.
Valid?: Yes (Form 10)

2.UA
(1) All G1 are G2.
Therefore,
(2) All non-G2 are non-G1.
Valid?: Yes (Form 11)

3.UA
(1) All G1 are G2.
Therefore,
(2) All G1 are not non-G2.
Valid?: Yes (Form 13)

4. UA
(1) All G1 are G2.
Therefore,
(2) All G2 are G1.
Valid?: No

5.
(1) All G1 are G2.
Therefore,
(2) All G3 (animals exhibiting G1) will exhibit G2 (social learning).
Valid?: No

6.
(1) Some G1 are G2.
Therefore,
(2) Some G1 are not G3 (wild animals).
Valid?: No

7.
(1) All G1 are G2.
Therefore,
(2) All G2 are G1.
Valid?: No

8.
(1) All G1 are G2.
Therefore,
(2) All G2 are not non-G1.
Valid?: No

9.
(1) All G1 are G2.
Therefore,
(2) All G1 are not G3 (unendangered animals).
Valid?: Yes (Form 13)

10.
(1) All G1 are G2.
Therefore,
(2) All G1 are G3 (lesser impact on men).
Valid?: No

11.
(1) All G1 are G2.
 Therefore,
(2) All non-G1 are not G2.
Valid?: Yes (Form 13)

12.
(1) All G1 are G2.
Therefore,
(2) All G3 (people understanding unemployment) are non-G1.
Valid?: No

13.
(1) All G1 are G2.
Therefore,
(2) All non-G2 (inflation issues) are non-G1 (unemployment issues).
Valid?: Yes (Form 7)

14.
(1) No G1 are G2.
Therefore,
(2) All predictions about G1 will be imprecise.
Valid?: Yes (Form 6)

15.
(1) All G1 are G2.
Therefore,
(2) Some G3 (diseases not G1) are not G2 (treated by public policy).
Valid?: No

Ex 6.5:A
Câu 1: Argument:
"All dogs are collies and all collies are purple; therefore, all dogs are purple."
*Standard Categorical Form:
A = Dogs
B = Collies
C = Purple things
(1) All A are B.
(2) All B are C.
Therefore, (3) All A are C.

Câu 2: Argument:
"Some chickens are green because all chickens are ugly and some ugly things are green."
 *Standard Categorical Form:
A = Chickens
B = Ugly things
C = Green things
(1)All A are B.
(2) Some B are C.
Therefore, (3) Some A are C.

Câu 3: Argument:
"Some apples are fruits and some oranges are fruits, so it follows that some apples are
oranges."
It isn’t a categorical syllogism.

Câu 4: Argument:
"All freshmen are students and no students are infants, so all infants are not students."
It isn’t a categorical syllogism.

Câu 5: Argument:
"All seniors are graduating and all sophomores are not seniors, so some graduates are not
sophomores."
*Standard Categorical Form:
A = Seniors
B = Graduating
C = Sophomores
(1) All A are B.
(2) No C are A.
Therefore, (3) Some B are not C.

Câu 6: Argument:
"Some politicians are honest so politicians must be unhappy because most honest people
are unhappy."
It isn’t a categorical syllogism.

Câu 7: Argument:
"Some New Yorkers belong to the Chinese Communist party because some people from
China belong to the Chinese Communist party and some New Yorkers are from China."
*Standard Categorical Form:
A = People from China
B = Chinese Communist party members
C = New Yorkers
(1) Some A are B.
(2) Some C are A.
Therefore, (3) Some C are B.
Câu 8: Argument:
"No Americans are wealthy, so Cindy is not wealthy because Cindy is an American."
*Standard Categorical Form:
A = Americans
W = Wealthy people
C = Cindy
(1) All A are not W.
(2) All C are A.
Therefore, (3) All C are not W.

Câu 9: Argument:
"All able-bodied people younger than 65 years of age are in need of their own health
insurance because all able-bodied people younger than 65 are not eligible for Medicare
whereas all people eligible for Medicare are not in need of health insurance."
*Standard Categorical Form:
A = Able-bodied people younger than 65
B = Eligible for Medicare
C = In need of health insurance
(1) All A are not B.
(2) All B are not C.
Therefore, (3) All A are C.

Câu 10: Argument:

"Accountants never laugh and your friend never laughs, so she must be an accountant."
It isn’t a categorical syllogism.

Câu 11: Argument:

"All dogs like chasing balls and all collies are dogs. All collies like chasing balls."
*Standard Categorical Form:
A = Dogs
B = Collies
C = Like chasing balls
(1) All A are C.
(2) All B are A.
Therefore, (3) All B are C.

Câu 12: Argument:

"Because animals cannot be moral agents, they cannot be said to have rights; therefore, if
they are due moral consideration at all, it must be on some other basis."
*Standard Categorical Form (Categorical Syllogism):
A = Animals
 M = Moral agents
R = Beings who have rights
(1) All A are not M.
(2) All R are M.
Therefore, (3) All A are not R.

*The Propositional Argument:

(1) Animals are beings who have rights.
(2) Animals are beings who are due moral consideration based on something other than
rights.
Therefore, (3) Animals are not beings who have rights.

Câu 13: Argument:

"Residents of the congressional district of our state do not earn more than the minimum
wage because residents of the congressional district of our state will not be affected by
the upcoming tax hike and residents who do not earn more than the minimum wage will
not be affected by the upcoming tax hike."
*Standard Categorical Form:
A = Residents not earning more than minimum wage
B = Affected by the tax hike
C = Congressional district residents
(1) All A are not B.
(2) All C are not B.
Therefore, (3) All C are A.

Câu 14: Argument:

"All employees are stakeholders in the company so all CEOs should act in their favor
because all CEOs are responsible to stakeholders of the company."
*Standard Categorical Form:
A = Employees
B = Stakeholders
C = CEOs
(1) All A are B.
(2) All C are responsible to B.
Therefore, (3) All C should act in favor of A.

Câu 15: Argument:

"'All classrooms painted in non-white colors spark students’ imaginations because
classrooms painted white are boring and bored students do not engage their
imaginations.'"

*Standard Categorical Form:

A = Classrooms painted white
 B = Boring classrooms
C = Engaging imaginations
(1) All A are B.
(2) All B do not engage C.
Therefore, (3) Classrooms not painted white spark imaginations.

Ex 6.5:B
Câu 1
Argument:
"Some dogs are German shepherds and some German shepherds are black. That proves
that some dogs are black."
 Standard Categorical Form:
A = Dogs
B = German shepherds
C = Black animals
(1) Some A are B.
(2) Some B are C.
Therefore, (3) Some A are C.

Câu 2
Argument:
"All dogs are German shepherds and all German shepherds are black. That proves that all
dogs are black."
 Standard Categorical Form:
A = Dogs
B = German shepherds
C = Black animals
(1) All A are B.
(2) All B are C.
Therefore, (3) All A are C.

Câu 3
Argument:
"I can tell you why I’m sure those were red-breasted nuthatches we saw. They had a
sharp black line through the eye and a cinnamon-red breast. All red-breasted nuthatches
have those markings."
 Standard Categorical Form:
A = Birds we saw
B = Red-breasted nuthatches
C = Birds with sharp black line and cinnamon-red breast
(1) All B are C.
(2) All A are C.
Therefore, (3) All A are B.
Câu 4
Argument:
"There is a categorical syllogism."
(1) All birds with a sharp black line through the eye and a cinnamon-red breast are red-
breasted nuthatches.
(2) All the birds we saw had a sharp black line through the eye and a cinnamon-red
breast.
Therefore,
(3) All the birds we saw were red-breasted nuthatches.
 Standard Categorical Form:
S = Birds with sharp black line through the eye and cinnamon-red breast
N = Red-breasted nuthatches
B = Birds we saw
(1) All S are N.
(2) All B are S.
Therefore, (3) All B are N.

Câu 5
Argument:
"Some people hate some kinds of people. I hate those kinds of people. So I must hate
myself!"
"There is not a categorical syllogism."

Câu 6
Argument:
"Leave it to a bunch of weirdos to invent the perfect game. Ultimate frisbee is intensely
physical, a mix of measured teamwork and bursts of individual athleticism. It’s like
playing football if you played all the positions—quarterback, receiver and defensive back
—and played them continually, without breaks."
"There is not a categorical syllogism."

Câu 7
Argument:
"People may say one thing in a focus group and do another thing in the voting booth. To
get beyond this, some neuromarketers are tracking not only what people say on the
survey, but also the time it takes them to respond, since their theory is that 'faster
responses indicate stronger feelings.'"
"There is not a categorical syllogism."

Câu 8
Argument:
There are three arguments, one of which is categorical. The categorical argument is a
subargument to the main conclusion, which is that diabetes is a public problem.
Categorical Syllogism:
(1) Diabetes is a medical condition that can be ameliorated by loss of weight and increase
in exercise activity.
(2) Medical conditions that can be ameliorated by weight control and exercise programs
are diseases that involve no medication and can be advertised and administered publicly.
Therefore,
(3) Diabetes is a medical condition that involves no medication and indeed can be
advertised and administered publicly.
 Standard Categorical Form:
D = Diabetes
W = Medical conditions that can be ameliorated by loss of weight and increase in
exercise activity
A = Diseases that involve no medication and can be advertised and administered
publicly
(1) All D are W.
(2) All W are A.
Therefore, (3) All D are A.
Propositional Argument:
(1) If a medical condition is an individual’s disease, then it involves medication and
cannot be administered publicly.
(2) Diabetes is a medical condition that involves no medication and indeed can be
administered and advertised publicly.
Therefore,
(3) Diabetes is not an individual’s disease.

Câu 9
Argument:
"Reflecting on infectious conditions, it appears that disease burden, rapid change in
disease incidence (suggesting preventability), and public concern about risk are three
essential characteristics that define a public-health disorder."
Standard Form:
A = Diseases with rapid change in incidence
B = Preventable diseases
C = Public-health disorders
(1) All A are B.
(2) All B are C.
Therefore, (3) All A are C.

Câu 10
Argument:
"Most would still consider diabetes primarily to be a clinical disease. In part, this
perception is based on the fact that, in association with aging and a possible strong family
history, diabetes and its complications may appear inevitable to many."
Standard Form:
A = Diabetes
B = Clinical diseases
C = Diseases associated with aging
(1) Some C are B.
(2) All A are B.
Therefore, (3) Some A are C.

Câu 11
Argument:
"Because it was assumed that scientific progress would displace people’s need for
religion, it was expected that religion would decline in the 20th century given the growth
of scientific achievement. This did not happen. In fact, religion has been on the rise in the
past few decades despite tremendous scientific achievements."
Standard Form:
A = People’s need for religion
B = Things expected to decline due to scientific progress
C = Things that have not declined

(1) All A are B.

(2) All C are not B.
Therefore, (3) All C are not A.

Câu 12
Argument:
This passage is a tri-conditional propositional argument.
A = The actual price is greater than the standard price per hour
D = The direct labor price variance is a positive number
V = There is an indication of an unfavorable variance
(1) If A, then D.
(2) If D, then V.
Therefore,
(3) If A, then V.

Câu 13
Argument:
"A city like Rome that once ran an empire is bound to the daily contemplation of gilded
palaces given over to diminished business."
Standard Form:
A = Cities that once ran an empire
B = Cities that are now pessimistic
C = Rome
(1) All A are B.
(2) C is A.
Therefore, (3) C is B.

Câu 14
Argument:
"Luther was anything but a fundamentalist. He did not attach equal importance to every
biblical text. He boldly called Romans 'the most important document in the New
Testament,' and he brushed aside the Epistle to St. James as 'an epistle of straw.'"
Standard Form:
A = People who consider all biblical texts equally important
B = Fundamentalists
C = Luther
(1) No A are C.
(2) All B are A.
Therefore, (3) No B are C

Câu 15
Argument:
"Social responsibility arises from concern about the consequences of business’s acts as
they affect the interests of others. Business decisions do have social consequences."
Standard Form:
A = Business decisions
B = Actions that affect society’s interests
C = Socially responsible business people
(1) All A are B.
(2) All C must take B into account.
Therefore, (3) All C must take A into account.

Ex 6.6A:
Question 1
The equal negatives test: Passes. There are no negations in the conclusion and none in the
premises.
The quantity test: Passes. Both premises are universal.
The distributed conclusion test: Fails. G3 is distributed in the conclusion but not in either
premise.
The distributed middle group test: Fails. G2 is not distributed in either premise.
Conclusion: The argument is invalid.

Question 2
The equal negatives test: Passes. There are no negations in the conclusion and none in the
premises.
The quantity test: Passes. One premise is a universal negative, and the other is also a
universal negative.
The distributed conclusion test: Fails. G3 is distributed in the conclusion but not in either
premise.
The distributed middle group test: Passes. G2 is distributed in the second premise.
Conclusion: The argument is invalid.

Question 3
The equal negatives test: Passes. There are no negations in the conclusion and none in the
premises.
The quantity test: Passes. One premise is universal, and one premise is particular.
The distributed conclusion test: Passes. G3 is not distributed in the premise or the
conclusion.
The distributed middle group test: Passes. G1 is distributed in the premise.
Conclusion: The argument is valid.

Question 4
The equal negatives test: Passes. There are no negations in the conclusion and none in the
premises.
The quantity test: Passes. One premise is universal, and one is particular.
The distributed conclusion test: Fails. G3 is distributed in the conclusion but not in either
premise.
The distributed middle group test: Passes. G2 is distributed in premise (1).
Conclusion: The argument is invalid.

Question 5
The equal negatives test: Passes. There are no negations in the conclusion and none in the
premises.
The quantity test: Passes. One premise is universal, and one premise is particular.
The distributed conclusion test: Fails. G3 is not distributed in the first premise or in either
premise.
The distributed middle group test: Fails. G3 is not distributed in either premise.
Conclusion: The argument is invalid.

Ex6.6B:
6.5A
1.Passes all four tests. The argument is valid.
2. The argument is invalid. ( Fail 2 test)
3. It isn’t a categorical syllogism.
4. It isn’t a categorical syllogism.
5. Passes all four tests. The argument is valid.
6. It isn’t a categorical syllogism.
7. The argument is invalid. ( Fail 2 test)
8. Passes all four tests. The argument is valid.
9. Passes all four tests. The argument is valid.
10. It isn’t a categorical syllogism.
11. Passes all four tests. The argument is valid.
12. Passes all four tests. The argument is valid.
13. Passes all four tests. The argument is valid.
14. Passes all four tests. The argument is valid.
15. The argument is invalid. ( Fail 2 test)
6.5B
1. The argument is invalid. ( Fail 3 test)
2. Passes all four tests. The argument is valid.
3. Passes all four tests. The argument is valid.
4. Passes all four tests. The argument is valid.
5. It isn’t a categorical syllogism.
6. It isn’t a categorical syllogism.
7. It isn’t a categorical syllogism.
8. Passes all four tests. The argument is valid.
9. Passes all four tests. The argument is valid.
10. Passes all four tests. The argument is valid.
11. Passes all four tests. The argument is valid.
12. The argument is not a categorical argument.
13. Passes all four tests. The argument is valid.
14. Passes all four tests. The argument is valid.
15. Passes all four tests. The argument is valid.

CHAPTER 7

Ex7.1A:
1. No analogy
2. No analogy
3. This is an analogy
4. No analogy
5. No analogy
6. No analogy
7. No analogy
8. This is an analogy
9. This is an analogy
10. This is an analogy
Ex7.1B:
1. This is no analogy
2. Analogical. This is argumentative
3. This is no analogy
4. The passage is an argument, but not an anological argument.
5. This is no analogy
6. This is no analogy
7. Analogical. This is illustrative
8. This is no analogy. But there’s a statistical argument.
9. This is no analogy
10. Analogical. This is illustrative

Ex7.1C:

7.1B
Passage 2:
 Primary Subject: Humans' reaction to substance X.
 Analogue: Monkeys' reaction to substance X.
 Similarities: Both are medium-sized mammals, and both live in groups.
 Conclusory Feature: Since monkeys react to substance X in a certain way,
humans will show a similar reaction.
(1) Monkeys have features F1 (medium-sized mammals), F2 (live in groups), F3
(reaction to substance X), and feature Fc (reaction R).
(2) Humans also have features F1, F2, F3.
Therefore, Humans probably have feature Fc (reaction R to substance X).

Passage 7:
 Primary Subject: Electrons’ behavior around the nucleus of an atom.
 Analogue: The planets’ movement around the sun.
 Similarities: Both are attracted by a central force in inverse proportion to the
square of the distance.
 Conclusory Feature: Electrons orbit the nucleus just as planets orbit the sun.
(1) Planets have features F1 (attracted by central force), F2 (inverse square law), F3
(orbits), and feature Fc (revolving around a center).
(2) Electrons also have features F1, F2, F3.
Therefore, Electrons probably have feature Fc (revolving around the nucleus).

Passage 10:
 Primary Subject: Human capacity for nobler feelings.
 Analogue: A tender plant.
 Similarities: Both are fragile and can be destroyed by harsh conditions.
 Conclusory Feature: Nobler feelings, like tender plants, need to be nurtured and
protected to survive.
(1) A tender plant has features F1 (fragile), F2 (easily killed), F3 (requires care), and
feature Fc (can be destroyed by harsh conditions).
(2) Human feelings also have features F1, F2, F3.
Therefore, Human feelings probably have feature Fc (can be destroyed by harsh
conditions).

7.1A
3. Life is like a bowl of cherries:
 Primary Subject: Life
 Analogue: A bowl of cherries
 Similarities: F1 (varied experiences), F2 (sometimes sweet, sometimes bitter), F3
(can be enjoyed or faced with challenges).
 Conclusory Feature: Life, like a bowl of cherries, is full of different experiences
that one must savor or endure.
Standard Form:
(1) A bowl of cherries has features F1 (variety), F2 (bitterness/sweetness), F3 (enjoyment
or challenge), and feature Fc (life's unpredictability).
(2) Life also has features F1, F2, F3.
Therefore, Life probably has feature Fc (life's unpredictability).

9. VCU researchers and crayfish:

 Primary Subject: Nerve cells in humans
 Analogue: Nerve cells in crayfish
 Similarities: F1 (role of calcium in nerve function), F2 (nervous system
disorders), F3 (similar biological mechanisms).
 Conclusory Feature: Discoveries in crayfish nerve cells may lead to advances in
treating human nervous system diseases.
Standard Form:
(1) Nerve cells in crayfish have features F1 (role of calcium), F2 (nervous system
function), F3 (treatment potential for diseases), and feature Fc (important for medical
advances).
(2) Nerve cells in humans also have features F1, F2, F3.
Therefore, Nerve cells in humans probably have feature Fc (importance for medical
advances).

10. The Earth and other planets:

 Primary Subject: Other planets (e.g., Venus, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter)
 Analogue: Earth
 Similarities: F1 (approximately spherical), F2 (revolve around the Sun), F3 (have
atmospheres), F4 (have an irregular surface), and feature Fc (support life).
 Conclusory Feature: It's probable that other planets also contain forms of life like
the Earth.
Standard Form:
(1) The Earth has features F1 (spherical), F2 (revolves around the Sun), F3 (has an
atmosphere), and feature Fc (contains life).
(2) Other planets also have features F1, F2, F3.
Therefore, Other planets probably have feature Fc (contain life).

Ex 7.2:
1. Constructing an analogy in favor of or against polygamy:
For:
Polygamy is like a well-functioning machine with many parts. Each part (spouse) has a
role in contributing to the overall harmony and success of the machine (family), thereby
enhancing the collective support.
Against:
Polygamy is like trying to ride multiple horses at once—each horse pulls in different
directions, and it becomes impossible to control them all, leading to conflict.

2. Constructing an analogy in favor of or against capital punishment:

For:
Capital punishment is like pruning a tree. If diseased branches (criminals) are not cut off,
they may threaten the life of the entire tree (society).
Against:
Capital punishment is like trying to fix a broken machine by destroying it. Instead of
solving the problem, it eliminates the potential for reform and improvement.

3. Construct a logical analogy between arguments A and B that concludes that

argument B passes the proper form test:
Argument A:
1. If he's a senator, he's at least thirty.
2. He isn't thirty.
3. Therefore, he isn’t a senator.
Argument B:
1. If he lives in New York, he lives in the United States.
2. He doesn’t live in the United States.
3. Therefore, he doesn’t live in New York.
Both arguments follow the same logical structure of modus tollens:
 If P, then Q.
 Not Q.
 Therefore, not P.

4. Refuting an Argument with a Logical Analogy:

Argument:
1. If someone is French, she’s European.
2. Queen Elizabeth of England isn’t French.
3. Therefore, Queen Elizabeth of England isn’t European.
Refutation: This is a refutation by logical analogy because both premises are true, but
the conclusion is false.

5. Cloning Argument Refutation:

Original Argument:
Cloning should be rejected because it would be equivalent to "playing God."
Refutation Analogy:
Doctors intervene in many natural processes, like saving lives with surgery or organ
transplants. If "playing God" is unacceptable in cloning, it would also apply to life-saving
interventions, but doctors regularly perform these.

6. Similarity and Conclusory Feature Analogy:

Similarity (F1): Both "houses built in New Orleans" and "houses built on the Florida
coast" are prone to hurricanes and flooding.
Conclusory Feature (Fc): Therefore, both houses should be built with hurricane-resistant
materials.

7. Construct an analogy about family owning Hilton Hotels:

If Stanley is wealthy and unreliable, and both Stanley and Roger share similar roles in the
Hilton family, then Roger is likely to be wealthy and unreliable as well.

8. Argument Against and For Abortion:

Against:
1. Adult human beings have the genetic code of the species homo sapiens, and killing
adult human beings should be illegal.
2. Human fetuses also have the genetic code of the species homo sapiens.
3. Therefore, killing human fetuses should be illegal.
For:
1. A woman’s decision to have a child is a fundamental part of a woman’s freedom,
and a woman’s decision to have a child should be legal.
2. A woman’s decision not to have a child is also a fundamental part of a woman’s
freedom.
3. Therefore, a woman’s decision not to have a child, to have an abortion, should be
legal.

9. Put the following analogy into standard form, from the child’s point of view:
Given analogy:
Just as a child learns how to speak, they’ll tend to apply the standard rules of verb
formation to irregular verbs as well, saying "comed" rather than "came."
Standard form:
1. Children follow rules when learning language.
2. Irregular verbs don’t follow the standard rules of language.
 3. Therefore, children will apply the standard rules to irregular verbs, forming words
like "comed" rather than "came."

10. Construct an analogy that concludes that dinosaurs were probably killed by a
giant meteorite.
Just like how a large asteroid impact caused massive destruction when it struck Siberia
millions of years ago, the same kind of impact could have caused the extinction of the
dinosaurs by throwing up enough debris into the atmosphere to block out the sun, leading
to a cooling of the Earth.

11. Construct an analogy for the view that whales should be classified as fish. Put
your analogy into standard form:
Whales live in the ocean and have fins like fish. Since fish are defined by their habitat
and external features, whales should also be classified as fish.
(1) Fish live in the ocean and have fins (features F1, F2), and are classified as fish.
(2) Whales also live in the ocean and have fins (features F1, F2).
(3) Therefore, whales should also be classified as fish.

12. Construct an analogy for the view that whales should be classified as mammals.
Put your analogy into standard form:
Whales give birth to live young and breathe air, like humans and other mammals. Since
these are defining features of mammals, whales should be classified as mammals.
(1) Mammals give birth to live young and breathe air (features F1, F2), and are classified
as mammals.
(2) Whales also give birth to live young and breathe air (features F1, F2).
(3) Therefore, whales should also be classified as mammals.

13. Climate Analogy for Antarctica:

1. There are places where amphibians live today, and these places are much warmer
than Antarctica is today.
2. Antarctica 245 million years ago is a place where amphibians lived.
3. Therefore, Antarctica 245 million years ago was much warmer than it is today.

14. Put the argument in this passage into the standard form of an analogy:
Given Argument: Segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race,
even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the
minority group of equal educational opportunities.
Standard form:
1. Segregation in public schools is like separating students based on arbitrary features
(e.g., hair color) rather than merit.
2. Separation based on arbitrary features leads to unequal treatment, even if facilities
are identical.
3. Therefore, segregation in public schools based on race leads to unequal
educational opportunities, even if the facilities are the same.