Question 1

Major premise: If a country has a strong economy, the government will be popular.
Minor premise: The government is not popular.
Conclusion: Therefore, the country does not have a strong economy.
Is a valid argument?

Accepted Answer

This is an example of a valid argument using the contrapositive reasoning. If the major premise is true, then the lack of popularity implies the absence of a strong economy.

Question 2

Major premise: If a country has a strong economy, the government will be popular.
Minor premise: The government is not popular.
Conclusion: Therefore, the country does not have a strong economy.
What form (what type of categorical syllogism) does this argument take?
A) affirming the antecedent
B) denying the antecedent
C) affirming the consequent
D) denying the consequent

Accepted Answer

This argument is an example of denying the consequent, which follows the logical form: If P, then Q; not Q; therefore, not P. Here, P represents "a country has a strong economy," and Q represents "the government will be popular." The argument states that since the government is not popular (not Q), the country does not have a strong economy (not P).

Question 3

Major premise: If the president commits a criminal act, then he can be impeached.
Minor premise: The president does not commit a criminal act.
Conclusion: Therefore, the president cannot be impeached.
Is a valid argument?

Accepted Answer

The argument is invalid because it commits the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises since impeachment can occur for reasons other than committing a criminal act.

Question 4

Major premise: If the president commits a criminal act, then he can be impeached.
Minor premise: The president does not commit a criminal act.
Conclusion: Therefore, the president cannot be impeached.
What form (what type of categorical syllogism) does this argument take?
A) affirming the antecedent
B) denying the antecedent
C) affirming the consequent
D) denying the consequent

Accepted Answer

This argument takes the form of denying the antecedent, which means that the conclusion is reached by incorrectly assuming that if the major premise is false (the president does not commit a criminal act), then the minor premise must also be false (the president cannot be impeached). However, this is not necessarily true, as there may be other valid reasons for impeaching a president even if they have not committed a criminal act.

Question 5

Major premise: If the president commits a criminal act, then he can be impeached.
Minor premise: The president cannot be impeached.
Conclusion: Therefore, the president has not committed a criminal act.
Is a valid argument?

Accepted Answer

This is a valid argument known as modus tollens. If the conditional statement "If P, then Q" is true, and Q is false, then P must also be false.

Question 6

Major premise: If the president commits a criminal act, then he can be impeached.
Minor premise: The president cannot be impeached.
Conclusion: Therefore, the president has not committed a criminal act.
What form (what type of categorical syllogism) does this argument take?
A) affirming the antecedent
B) denying the antecedent
C) affirming the consequent
D) denying the consequent

Accepted Answer

This argument is an example of denying the consequent, a valid form of logical argument. It follows the structure: If P, then Q. Not Q, therefore not P.

Question 7

Major premise: If a country employs proportional representation electoral rules, it will have many parties.
Minor premise: The country does not employ proportional representation electoral rules.
Conclusion: Therefore, the country does not have many parties.
Is a valid argument?

Accepted Answer

The argument is invalid because it commits the fallacy of denying the consequent. Just because a country does not employ proportional representation electoral rules does not necessarily mean that it does not have many parties, as other factors can influence the number of parties that exist.

Question 8

Major premise: If a country employs proportional representation electoral rules, it will have many parties.
Minor premise: The country does not employ proportional representation electoral rules.
Conclusion: Therefore, the country does not have many parties.
What form (what type of categorical syllogism) does this argument take?
A) affirming the antecedent
B) denying the antecedent
C) affirming the consequent
D) denying the consequent

Accepted Answer

The argument takes the form of denying the antecedent, which is an invalid form of syllogism. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. It is possible for a country to not employ proportional representation electoral rules and still have many parties.

Question 9

Major premise: If theory T is correct, all rich countries will be democracies.
Minor premise: All rich countries are democracies.
Conclusion: Therefore, theory T is correct.
Is a valid argument?

Accepted Answer

This argument commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Just because all rich countries are democracies (the consequence), it does not logically follow that theory T (the antecedent) is correct. There could be other reasons why all rich countries are democracies.

Question 10

Major premise: If theory T is correct, all rich countries will be democracies.
Minor premise: All rich countries are democracies.
Conclusion: Therefore, theory T is correct.
What form (what type of categorical syllogism) does this argument take?
A) affirming the antecedent
B) denying the antecedent
C) affirming the consequent
D) denying the consequent

Accepted Answer

The argument follows the pattern of affirming the consequent, where it assumes that if theory T is correct, then all rich countries will be democracies. It then observes that all rich countries are democracies, and therefore concludes that theory T is correct. However, this argument is invalid as there could be other reasons why all rich countries are democracies, and theory T may not necessarily be the only explanation.

Question 11

Consider the following premise: "If theory T is correct, all rich countries will be democracies." If you wanted to demonstrate that theory T was wrong, what would you have to observe?
A) a poor democracy
B) a rich dictatorship
C) a poor dictatorship
D) a rich democracy

Accepted Answer

The premise states that if theory T is correct, all rich countries will be democracies. Therefore, observing a rich dictatorship would demonstrate that the theory is wrong, as it contradicts the premise. The other options (A, C, and D) do not necessarily contradict the premise and do not provide evidence that the theory is wrong.

Question 12

Major premise: If a country's electoral rules are permissive, then votes should be translated into seats in a fairly proportional manner.
Minor premise: In the most recent election, votes were not translated into seats in a proportional manner.
Conclusion: Therefore, the country's electoral rules are not permissive.
Is a valid argument?

Accepted Answer

This is a valid argument because it follows the logical structure of modus tollens: If P, then Q. Not Q, therefore not P.

Question 13

Major premise: If a country's electoral rules are permissive, then votes should be translated into seats in a fairly proportional manner.
Minor premise: In the most recent election, votes were not translated into seats in a proportional manner.
Conclusion: Therefore, the country's electoral rules are not permissive.
What form (what type of categorical syllogism) does this argument take?
A) affirming the antecedent
B) denying the antecedent
C) affirming the consequent
D) denying the consequent

Accepted Answer

This argument is an example of denying the consequent, which follows the logical form: If P, then Q. Not Q, therefore not P. The argument concludes that the electoral rules are not permissive (not P) because the votes were not translated into seats in a proportional manner (not Q).

Question 14

Major premise: If a country has a participant culture, then democracy in that country will be stable.
Minor premise: Democracy in country X is stable.
Conclusion: Therefore, country X has a participant culture.
Is a valid argument?

Accepted Answer

The argument commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Just because democracy is stable in country X does not necessarily mean the cause is a participant culture; stability could be due to other factors.

Question 15

Major premise: If a country has a participant culture, then democracy in that country will be stable.
Minor premise: Democracy in country X is stable.
Conclusion: Therefore, country X has a participant culture.
What form (what type of categorical syllogism) does this argument take?
A) affirming the antecedent
B) denying the antecedent
C) affirming the consequent
D) denying the consequent

Accepted Answer

This argument takes the form of affirming the consequent, which is invalid. The stability of a democracy does not necessarily mean that the country has a participant culture. There could be other factors contributing to the stability of the democracy. Therefore, the conclusion cannot be logically inferred from the major and minor premises.

Question 16

A valid argument is
A) one where the conclusion is true.
B) one where the conclusion is false.
C) one where you do not have to accept the conclusion if you accept the premises.
D) one where you have to accept the conclusion if you accept the premises.

Accepted Answer

A valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises. In other words, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Therefore, you have to accept the conclusion if you accept the premises in a valid argument.

Question 17

The deductive approach to learning
A) starts with a set of observations and then tries to ascertain a pattern in the observations that can be used to generate an explanation.
B) formulates an expectation about what we ought to observe in light of a particular theory about the world and then sets out to see if the observations are consistent with that theory.

Accepted Answer

The deductive approach formulates expectations about what we ought to observe based on a particular theory and then tests whether observations are consistent with that theory.

Question 18

If I observe a pattern in political events and decide to generate an explanation for those events, I am practicing ______ approach to learning.
A) deductive
B) inductive
C) deterministic
D) probabilistic

Accepted Answer

Inductive approach involves observing patterns and using that information to generate a theory or explanation for those patterns. Deductive approach starts with a hypothesis or theory and tests it through observation, while deterministic and probabilistic approaches relate more to the level of certainty in predicting outcomes.

Question 19

If I derive some implications from a theory and collect observations to see if they are consistent with that theory, I am practicing ______ approach to learning.
A) deductive
B) inductive
C) deterministic
D) probabilistic

Accepted Answer

Deductive reasoning starts with a theory or hypothesis and derives implications or predictions from it. It then tests these predictions through observations or experiments to see if they are consistent with the theory. Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, starts with observations and derives generalizations or theories from them. Deterministic and probabilistic approaches refer to the level of certainty or randomness involved in a prediction or outcome, but do not necessarily relate to the specific method of learning.

Question 20

Inductive reasoning is problematic because it relies on
A) affirming the antecedent.
B) denying the antecedent.
C) affirming the consequent.
D) denying the consequent.

Accepted Answer

Inductive reasoning is problematic because it relies on affirming the consequent, which is a logical fallacy. This means that even if a conclusion is drawn from a set of observations or evidence, it may not necessarily be true because there could be other factors that are not accounted for.

Quiz 1: What Is Science

Major premise: If a country has a strong economy, the government will be popular. Minor premise: The government is not popular. Conclusion: Therefore, the country does not have a strong economy. Is a valid argument?

Major premise: If a country has a strong economy, the government will be popular. Minor premise: The government is not popular. Conclusion: Therefore, the country does not have a strong economy. What form (what type of categorical syllogism) does this argument take?

Major premise: If the president commits a criminal act, then he can be impeached. Minor premise: The president does not commit a criminal act. Conclusion: Therefore, the president cannot be impeached. Is a valid argument?

Major premise: If the president commits a criminal act, then he can be impeached. Minor premise: The president does not commit a criminal act. Conclusion: Therefore, the president cannot be impeached. What form (what type of categorical syllogism) does this argument take?

Major premise: If the president commits a criminal act, then he can be impeached. Minor premise: The president cannot be impeached. Conclusion: Therefore, the president has not committed a criminal act. Is a valid argument?

Major premise: If the president commits a criminal act, then he can be impeached. Minor premise: The president cannot be impeached. Conclusion: Therefore, the president has not committed a criminal act. What form (what type of categorical syllogism) does this argument take?

Major premise: If a country employs proportional representation electoral rules, it will have many parties. Minor premise: The country does not employ proportional representation electoral rules. Conclusion: Therefore, the country does not have many parties. Is a valid argument?

Major premise: If theory T is correct, all rich countries will be democracies. Minor premise: All rich countries are democracies. Conclusion: Therefore, theory T is correct. Is a valid argument?

Major premise: If theory T is correct, all rich countries will be democracies. Minor premise: All rich countries are democracies. Conclusion: Therefore, theory T is correct. What form (what type of categorical syllogism) does this argument take?

Consider the following premise: "If theory T is correct, all rich countries will be democracies." If you wanted to demonstrate that theory T was wrong, what would you have to observe?

Major premise: If a country has a participant culture, then democracy in that country will be stable. Minor premise: Democracy in country X is stable. Conclusion: Therefore, country X has a participant culture. Is a valid argument?

Major premise: If a country has a participant culture, then democracy in that country will be stable. Minor premise: Democracy in country X is stable. Conclusion: Therefore, country X has a participant culture. What form (what type of categorical syllogism) does this argument take?

A valid argument is

The deductive approach to learning

If I observe a pattern in political events and decide to generate an explanation for those events, I am practicing ______ approach to learning.

If I derive some implications from a theory and collect observations to see if they are consistent with that theory, I am practicing ______ approach to learning.

Inductive reasoning is problematic because it relies on