Question 1

Identify the conclusion of each of the following arguments. Remember to remove any conclusion indicators.
-If your mind were organized, your desk would be organized. Thus, your mind isn't organized. This is
True because your desk isn't.
A) Your mind is organized.
B) Your desk is organized.
C) Your mind isn't organized.
D) Your desk isn't organized.
E) This is true because your desk isn't.

Accepted Answer

The conclusion of the argument is that "your mind isn't organized" because it follows from the premise that "if your mind were organized, your desk would be organized" and the fact that "your desk isn't organized."

Question 2

Identify the conclusion of each of the following arguments. Remember to remove any conclusion indicators.
-Some judges have been subjected to corrupting influences. Anyone who has practiced law has been subjected to corrupting influences. Some judges have practiced law.
A) Some judges have practiced law.
B) Some judges have been subjected to corrupting influences.
C) Anyone who has practiced law has been subjected to corrupting influences.

Accepted Answer

The conclusion is the statement that follows logically from the premises. In this argument, the conclusion is that "Some judges have been subjected to corrupting influences." The other two statements are premises that lead to this conclusion.

Question 3

Identify the conclusion of each of the following arguments. Remember to remove any conclusion indicators.
-If we want to combat AIDS, then we must prevent drug users from sharing dirty needles. If we must prevent the sharing of dirty needles, then the ban on selling needles should be lifted. And obviously, we do want to combat AIDS. The ban on selling hypodermic needles should be lifted.
A) The ban on selling hypodermic needles should be lifted.
B) We must prevent drug users from sharing dirty needles.
C) If we want to combat AIDS, then we must prevent drug users from sharing dirty needles.
D) If we must prevent the sharing of dirty needles, then the ban on selling needles should
Be lifted.
E) We do want to combat AIDS.

Accepted Answer

The argument's main point is that the ban on selling hypodermic needles should be lifted in order to combat AIDS. This is the conclusion of the argument.

Question 4

Identify the conclusion of each of the following arguments. Remember to remove any conclusion indicators.
-We should be committed to the entities hypothesized by the mathematics in question. There exist genuine mathematical explanations of empirical phenomena. We should be committed to the theoretical posits hypothesized by these mathematical explanations. (Paolo Mancosu)
A) We should be committed to the entities hypothesized by the mathematics in question.
B) There exist genuine mathematical explanations of empirical phenomena.
C) We should be committed to the theoretical posits hypothesized by these mathematical explanations.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Identify the conclusion of each of the...

Question 5

Identify the conclusion of each of the following arguments. Remember to remove any conclusion indicators.
-The government should not provide school vouchers. If they do, money will be directed away from the public schools. If the public schools have less money, they will deteriorate even further. And we don't want public schools to deteriorate.
A) The government should not provide school vouchers.
B) Money will be directed away from the public schools.
C) If the government provides school vouchers, money will be directed away from the public schools.
D) If the public schools have less money, they will deteriorate even further.
E) We don't want public schools to deteriorate.

Accepted Answer

The argument is ultimately, "The government should not provide school vouchers."

Question 6

Identify the conclusion of each of the following arguments. Remember to remove any conclusion indicators.
-The legalization of drugs is not unwise, because by legalizing drugs we would eliminate the drug trade. By legalizing drugs, we would rid our nation of all the violence that goes along with the illegal drug trade. Furthermore, the legalization of drugs is not immoral because it can be combined with a massive program of moral education. The legalization of drugs is neither unwise nor immoral.
A) The legalization of drugs is not unwise, because by legalizing drugs we would eliminate the drug trade.
B) By legalizing drugs we would eliminate the drug trade.
C) By legalizing drugs, we would rid our nation of all the violence that goes along with the illegal drug trade.
D) The legalization of drugs is not immoral because it can be combined with a massive program of moral education.
E) The legalization of drugs is neither unwise nor immoral.

Accepted Answer

The conclusion of the argument is that the legalization of drugs is neither unwise nor immoral, which is a summary statement that encompasses the reasoning provided in the argument.

Question 7

Identify the conclusion of each of the following arguments. Remember to remove any conclusion indicators.
-The universe is cooling off, and we are made of wet and messy materials. So computers have an
Advantage to us when it comes to evolution. That's because consciousness is just a matter of formal processes. And in computers, these formal processes can go on in substances that are much better able to survive.
A) The universe is cooling off, and we are made of wet and messy materials.
B) Computers have an advantage to us when it comes to evolution
C) That's because consciousness is just a matter of formal processes.
D) Consciousness is just a matter of formal processes.
E) In computers, these formal processes can go on in substances that are much better able to survive.

Accepted Answer

The conclusion of the argument is that computers have an evolutionary advantage over humans, which is directly stated after the premise about the universe cooling off and the nature of human materials.

Question 8

Identify the conclusion of each of the following arguments. Remember to remove any conclusion indicators.
-Understanding a language involves more than just manipulating a bunch of formal symbols. For, by virtue of implementing a formal computer program, I could behave exactly as if I understood Chinese. But I don't understand a word of Chinese. And if going through the appropriate computer program for understanding Chinese is not enough to give me an understanding of Chinese, then it is not enough to give any other digital computer an understanding of Chinese.
A) Understanding a language involves more than just manipulating a bunch of formal symbols.
B) By virtue of implementing a formal computer program, I could behave exactly as if I understood Chinese.
C) I don't understand a word of Chinese.
D) If going through the appropriate computer program for understanding Chinese is not enough to give me an understanding of Chinese, then it is not enough to give any other digital computer an understanding of Chinese.
E) It is not enough to give any other digital computer an understanding of Chinese.

Accepted Answer

DThe conclusion of the argument is twofold: firstly, it asserts that understanding a language involves more than just manipulating formal symbols (A), which is the broader claim being supported by the argument. Secondly, it concludes that if a computer program for understanding Chinese isn't sufficient for the speaker to understand Chinese, then it's also insufficient for any digital computer (D), which directly follows from the specific example given about the speaker's lack of understanding of Chinese despite potentially following a program.

Question 9

Identify the conclusion of each of the following arguments. Remember to remove any conclusion indicators.
-It is not necessary that of every affirmation and opposite negation one should be true and the other false. It is necessary for there to be or not to be a sea battle tomorrow. But it is not necessary for a sea battle to take place tomorrow. Nor is it necessary for one not to take place.
A) Of every affirmation and opposite negation one should be true and the other false.
B) It is not necessary that of every affirmation and opposite negation one should be true and the other false.
C) It is necessary for there to be or not to be a sea battle tomorrow.
D) It is not necessary for a sea battle to take place tomorrow.
E) It is not necessary for one not to take place.

Accepted Answer

The argument concludes that it is not a necessity for every affirmation and its opposite negation to be true and false, respectively, challenging the principle of bivalence.

Question 10

Identify the conclusion of each of the following arguments. Remember to remove any conclusion indicators.
-There is no purely logical analysis of conditionals. A counterfactual conditional is true if a certain connection obtains between the antecedent and the consequent. But the consequent seldom follows from the antecedent by logic alone. The assertion that a connection holds is made on the presumption that certain relevant circumstances not stated in the antecedent obtain. Even if we
Specify the particular relevant conditions, the connection obtaining will not be a logical one, but a causal one.
A) There is no purely logical analysis of conditionals.
B) A counterfactual conditional is true if a certain connection obtains between the antecedent and the consequent.
C) The consequent seldom follows from the antecedent by logic alone.
D) The assertion that a connection holds is made on the presumption that certain relevant circumstances not stated in the antecedent obtain.
E) Even if we specify the particular relevant conditions, the connection obtaining will not be a logical one, but a causal one.

Accepted Answer

The conclusion of the argument is that there is no purely logical analysis of conditionals, which is supported by the discussion of the nature of the connection between the antecedent and the consequent in counterfactual conditionals.

Question 11

Cats have whiskers. Cats have toes. So, cats have whiskers and toes.
A) Valid and sound
B) Valid and unsound
C) Invalid

Accepted Answer

The argument is deductively valid because the conclusion follows logically from the premises. It is also sound because both premises are true.

Question 12

Some mules are donkeys. Some mules are horses. Hence, some donkeys are horses.
A) Valid and sound
B) Valid and unsound
C) Invalid

Accepted Answer

This is an invalid syllogism. The premise that "some mules are horses" does not lead to the conclusion that "some donkeys are horses." It is possible for there to be mules that are not related to either donkeys or horses, so the conclusion cannot be drawn.

Question 13

All koalas are bears. All bears hibernate in the winter. Hence, all koalas hibernate in the winter.
A) Valid and sound
B) Valid and unsound
C) Invalid

Accepted Answer

The argument is valid because it follows a correct form of reasoning. However, it is unsound because the premise "all koalas are bears" is false. In fact, koalas are marsupials, not bears. Therefore, the conclusion cannot be accepted as true.

Question 14

All presidents of the United States have been wealthy. Trump is a man. Therefore, Trump is wealthy.
A) Valid and sound
B) Valid and unsound
C) Invalid

Accepted Answer

The argument is invalid because it commits a logical fallacy. It assumes that because all U.S. presidents have been wealthy and Trump is a man (not specifically stating he's a president), he must be wealthy. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, as being a man does not inherently mean one is wealthy or a U.S. president.

Question 15

All eagles are birds. Eagles are endangered species. So, birds are endangered species.
A) Valid and sound
B) Valid and unsound
C) Invalid

Accepted Answer

The argument is invalid because it commits the fallacy of hasty generalization. It incorrectly assumes that because eagles (a specific kind of bird) are endangered, all birds must be endangered, which is not logically justified.

Question 16

All rectangles are rhombuses. All rhombuses are parallelograms. So, all rectangles are parallelograms.
A) Valid and sound
B) Valid and unsound
C) Invalid

Accepted Answer

The argument is valid because the conclusion logically follows from the premises. It is sound because the premises are true: all rectangles are indeed parallelograms, as both rectangles and parallelograms have opposite sides parallel and equal in length.

Question 17

Some theories of truth are inflationary. Some theories of truth are deflationary. All theories of truth include the T-schema. So, all deflationary theories of truth include the T-schema.
A) Valid and sound
B) Valid and unsound
C) Invalid

Accepted Answer

The answer of Some theories of truth are inflationary. Some...

Question 18

All penguins are birds. All birds have wings. All winged creatures can fly. So, it follows that penguins can fly.
A) Valid and sound
B) Valid and unsound
C) Invalid

Accepted Answer

The answer of All penguins are birds. All birds have...

Question 19

Only white rats are used in genetic experiments. Ben is a rat used in a genetic experiment. So, Ben is white.
A) Valid and sound
B) Valid and unsound
C) Invalid

Accepted Answer

The argument is valid because the conclusion logically follows from the premises. However, it is unsound because the premise "Only white rats are used in genetic experiments" may not necessarily be true in reality.

Question 20

Descartes corresponded with Queen Christina. Queen Christina corresponded with Gian Lorenzo Bernini. So, Descartes corresponded with Gian Lorenzo Bernini.
A) Valid and sound
B) Valid and unsound
C) Invalid

Accepted Answer

The argument is invalid because it commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Just because Descartes corresponded with Queen Christina and Queen Christina corresponded with Gian Lorenzo Bernini, it does not logically follow that Descartes corresponded with Gian Lorenzo Bernini. This is an assumption that is not supported by the given premises.

Quiz 1: Introducing Logic

Identify the conclusion of each of the following arguments. Remember to remove any conclusion indicators. -If your mind were organized, your desk would be organized. Thus, your mind isn't organized. This is True because your desk isn't.

Identify the conclusion of each of the following arguments. Remember to remove any conclusion indicators. -Some judges have been subjected to corrupting influences. Anyone who has practiced law has been subjected to corrupting influences. Some judges have practiced law.

Cats have whiskers. Cats have toes. So, cats have whiskers and toes.

Some mules are donkeys. Some mules are horses. Hence, some donkeys are horses.

All koalas are bears. All bears hibernate in the winter. Hence, all koalas hibernate in the winter.

All presidents of the United States have been wealthy. Trump is a man. Therefore, Trump is wealthy.

All eagles are birds. Eagles are endangered species. So, birds are endangered species.

All rectangles are rhombuses. All rhombuses are parallelograms. So, all rectangles are parallelograms.

Some theories of truth are inflationary. Some theories of truth are deflationary. All theories of truth include the T-schema. So, all deflationary theories of truth include the T-schema.

All penguins are birds. All birds have wings. All winged creatures can fly. So, it follows that penguins can fly.

Only white rats are used in genetic experiments. Ben is a rat used in a genetic experiment. So, Ben is white.

Descartes corresponded with Queen Christina. Queen Christina corresponded with Gian Lorenzo Bernini. So, Descartes corresponded with Gian Lorenzo Bernini.