Deck 7: A Little Categorical Logic, Analyzing Arguments, Evaluating Arguments and Truth Claims

Question 1

A categorical statement is a statement that asserts positively and without qualification that a certain person, place, or thing exists.

Answer 1

False

Question 2

All syllogisms have two premises.

Answer 2

True

Question 3

In modern logic, the statement "Some dogs are mammals" can be validly inferred from the statement "All dogs are mammals."

Answer 3

False

Question 4

All standard-form categorical statements include one of the following quantifiers:

A) "any," "no," and "many"
B) "most," "none," and "almost all"
C) "all," "no" and "some"
D) none of the above.

Question 5

A common stylistic variant of the statement "No Democrats are Republicans" is

A) Most persons who are Democrats are not Republicans.
B) Democrats are not Republicans.
C) both a and b
D) none of the above.

Question 6

Consider this statement: "Doctor Who is the greatest sci-fi series of all time." What would be the best way to rephrase this statement to use it in a Venn diagram?

A) If a series is the greatest sci-fi series of all time then it is Doctor Who.
B) All shows identical to Doctor Who are shows that are the greatest sci-fi series of all time.
C) If the series is Doctor Who, then it is the greatest sci-fi series of all time.
D) Some show that is the greatest sci-fi series of all time is Doctor Who.
E) None of the above.

Question 7

From a critical thinking standpoint, an argument can be a good argument even if it lacks literary or rhetorical merit.

Question 8

A good inductive argument must be logically valid.

Question 9

To refute an argument is to challenge or criticize it.

Question 10

In general, if an unsupported claim fits well with our well-supported background beliefs, it is reasonable to accept it.

Question 11

One of the watchwords of critical thinkers is to never believe more strongly than the evidence warrants.

Question 12

From a critical thinking standpoint, a good argument should be

A) clear
B) deductively sound or inductively cogent
C) both a and b
D) none of the above

Question 13

An argument can be refuted by showing:

A) that an essential premise, or critical group of premises, is false or dubious
B) that the arguer is lying about something
C) that the arguer has committed some logical fallacy
D) all of the above.

Question 14

In evaluating an argument, we should ask:

A) Does the arguer practice what he or she preaches?
B) Is the arguer an ethical person?
C) Does the arguer commit any logical fallacies?
D) All of the above

Question 15

Refuting an argument by citing an example that shows that a key general claim of the argument is false is known as:

A) The countervailing evidence strategy
B) Refutation by counterexample
C) Selective targeting
D) Faulty implication

Question 16

In evaluating the sufficiency of an argument's supporting premises, it is important to ask:

A) Does the argument omit any crucial countervailing evidence?
B) Are all the premises logically consistent?
C) Are all the premises true?
D) All of the above

Question 17

In argument diagramming, premises should always be placed above the conclusions(s) they are claimed to support.

Question 18

In argument diagramming, an arrow means "supports" or "is evidence for."

Question 19

In the following argument, there are ______ premises (including subconclusions) that should be diagrammed: "If souls die, they must die either by decomposing or by annihilation. But what is not composed cannot decompose. And souls are not composed. Therefore souls cannot decompose. And nothing is annihilated as a whole. Therefore souls are not annihilated as a whole. Thus souls do not die either by decomposition or annihilation. Thus souls do not die. (Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics)

A) Eight
B) Seven
C) Nine
D) None of the above

Question 20

In the following argument, there are ______ premises (including subconclusions) that should be diagrammed: "Either you will eat an apple at lunch tomorrow, or you will not. If you will eat an apple at lunch tomorrow, then nothing you do between now and then will stop you from having that apple at lunch. If you will not eat an apple at lunch tomorrow, then any effort you make between now and then to eat such an apple will be, literally, fruitless. Therefore, you do not have two equally available options to eat or not to eat the apple. Thus, you are not really free concerning whether you will or will not eat an apple at lunch time tomorrow. (Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies, 1999 [slightly adapted])

A) Four
B) Five
C) Six
D) None of the above