Philosophy Critical Thinking Issues - Scholarship Essay Example

Answer all questions. This assessment task is out of 30 marks, and is worth 30% of the assessment for the QUESTION 4 marks] Give an example of (i) an argument and (ii) an explanation that could be given for the following statement. Barry is unhappy Explain what makes (i) an argument and (ii) an explanation. (i) "Barry is unhappy because he can't buy the house wanted now." This is an argument. This statement simply tells that Barry is unhappy because he cannot purchase the house he wanted. It does not explain the reason as to why Barry cannot buy the house or what logical events took place for this outcome to have happened. Remember an argument simply tries to convince you without logical explanation. (ii) "Barry is unhappy since his home loan was disapproved due to a low credit score. Because of this he will not be able to purchase the house he wanted." This is an explanation. It properly explains that the bank disapproved Barry's home loan application and therefore he will not be able to purchase the house he wanted which is why Barry is unhappy. This is an explanation. It explains what events took place that is causing Barry's unhappiness. The statement here is not trying to convince you rather it provides the logical reasoning behind the unhappiness. QUESTION 2: [5 marks] Standardize the following arguments. State whether any premises on the same level are linked or convergent. i. The trains in NSW never run on time, and it is a basic obligation of the state government to ensure that public transport is reliable. So the government in NSW could be in trouble at the next election, since people aren't going to vote for a government that can't meet its basic obligations. 1:1 Trains in NSW never run on time. 1:2 It is government's basic obligation to ensure reliable transport. 2: This government could be in trouble in the next election. C: People will not vote for a government that cannot meet basic obligations. ii. If you don't have your mobile phone, then you won't be able to call home unless you can find a pay phone. And you won't be able to find a payphone, because there aren't any around here anymore. So you won't be able to call home, because you don't have your mobile phone, since you left it at work. 1: You left your mobile at work. 2:1 To call home you would have to find a pay phone. 2:2 There are not any payphones around here. C: Without a mobile phone you cannot call home from anywhere. The premises are convergent. In the first argument the movement is 1.1, 1.2 and 2 and in the second argument the movement is 1, 2.1 and 2.2. Both arguments have two premises. The first argument has two parts of the first premises and the second argument has two parts in the second premises. Since the structure is different of the two premises, they are convergent on the same level. QUESTION 3: [5 marks] Standardize the target argument and counterargument in the following passage. Include any counterconsiderations and state whether any premises on the same level are linked or convergent. Supporters of the Atkins diet argue that following a high protein, low carbohydrate diet such as the Atkins diet is the best way to lose weight, since on that diet you cut out carbohydrates and it is carbohydrates that are responsible for weight gain. Further evidence they give that the Atkins diet is the way to go is the large number of celebrities who follow it. But nutritionists argue that although the Atkins diet may show immediate results, it is not the best way to lose weight. It is not safe, since eating a lot of protein-rich foods can increase the risk of heart disease, and cutting out carbohydrates increases the risk of some forms of cancer. Also, people who lose weight gradually on more conventional weight-loss plans are more likely to keep the weight off in the long term. Argument: (Atkins Diet) 1: On that diet you cut out carbohydrates and it is carbohydrates that are responsible for weight gain. 2: There is a large number of Celebrities who follow this diet. C: Supporters of the Atkins diet argue that following a high protein, low carbohydrate diet such as the Atkins diet is the best way to lose weight. Counterargument (Conventional Diet) 1.1: Eating a lot of protein-rich foods can increase the risk of heart disease. 1.2: Cutting out carbohydrates increases the risk of some forms of cancer. [cc] Nutritionists argue that although the Atkins diet may show immediate results, it is not the best way to lose weight. C People who lose weight gradually on more conventional weight-loss plans are more likely to keep the weight off in the long term. The counterargument does not react directly to the one premise given. Instead it offers two reasons to believe that why the Atkins' diet would not be the best way to go. It provides an alternate solution to what is being offered by the supporters of the Atkins diet, Counter arguments do not have to respond directly. There is a counter consideration in the counterargument. It is admitted that even though the Atkins' diet may show immediate results, but it if you follow the more conventional diet plan loosing weight gradually it will last longer. QUESTION 4 [3 marks] Give THREE examples of conditional statements to which someone who is wearing shoes but no socks would be a counterexample. 1. All children wear shoes with socks. 2. If shoes are worn without socks, it just not considered proper. 3. All Blue-collar workers will normally consider socks and shoes together to be part of formal attire. QUESTION 5 [2 marks] Give an example of an argument with the form "affirming the sufficient condition" and the conclusion: C: Joan won't win the prize If Joan doesn't compete fairly, than she cannot winnn the prize. She cheated off of another student, so Joan wont win the prize. This would be an affirming sufficient condition for Joan not to win the prize. The condition is that she cannot cheat off of another student and has to compete in the competition fairly, but since she did cheat (there by ignoring the condition to win) this affirms her failure. Conditions always begin with "if" or "then". They identify that if something will happen only than the second part of the sentence will take place. QUESTION 6 [4 marks] Standardise the following argument. State the form (e.g. affirming the necessary) of any conditional arguments or subarguments, and state whether they are valid or invalid. If Alf isn't wearing a tie, he won't be allowed in. But he is wearing a tie, since he's wearing a jacket and Alf only wears a jacket if he's wearing a tie. So he'll be allowed in. 1.1 Alf is not wearing a tie, he wont be allowed inside. 2. Alf is wearing a jacket. 2.1 Alf only wears the jacket with a tie. C. Alf is wearing a tie and he will be allowed in. 1.1 is the affirming condition without which nothing can happen. Than the premise starts at 2 and the structure of the premise is on the same level. Since Alf is wearing a tie and he will be allowed in that is the conclusion to all this. Therefore this argument is valid, since the truth of the premises is guaranteeing the truth of the conclusion. Remember 1.1 is the affirming condition it is not part of the premise. QUESTION 7 [5 marks] i. Give an example of (a) a standardised inductive argument, and (b) a standardised deductive argument, which could be given to support the conclusion: C: All drummers are smart. ii. Explain your answers in part (i): What makes argument (a) inductive and argument (b) deductive Deductive: 1.1: Worldwide drummer association held an annual exam. 1.2: Most of the drummers passed with marks above 90%. C. All drummers must be smart. The argument from 1.1 an1.2 is a valid deductive argument. It supports the conclusion. Further explanation is given below. The second example contains both a deductive and an inductive argument. Inductive: 1.1 The world drummer association has confirmed the test results. 2.1 Every drummer in the world attended the exam. 2.2 Most drummers passed with over 90%. C. All drummers must be smart. In this situation, 1.1 and 2.1 are the deductive arguments. However this whole premise is valid and from 2.1 to 2.2 the premises are valid inductive argument. Remember that argument whose conclusion is supposed to follow, with surety from its premise is a deductive one. Only when all the drummers took the exam was the association able to confirm that most drummers passed with over 90%. Which in supports the conclusion that all drummers are smart. QUESTION 8 [2 marks] i. Give an example of an argument that could be standardised with the following premise numbers, where 1 and 2 are linked, and 3 is convergent with them: 1.1 Darryl did not iron her cloths. 1 She went to her friend's house. 2 She will borrow an ironed suit from her friend. 3 She never goes to work without ironed cloths. C: Darryl will be late for work. Premises 1and 2 are linked they are part of the same activity that caused 1.1. They in turn explain why 1.1 happened. However premises 3 is convergent, it is about what happens or never happens if 1.1 takes place. It is no part of the same thinking. Read More