Question.486 - Chapter 4 Exercises - Logic and Critical Thinking
Answer Below:
Chapter 4 Exercises Exercise 4.1 1) Valid Argument pattern - Modus tollens 2) Valid Argument pattern - Modus Ponens 3) Valid Argument pattern - Disjunctive syllogism 4) Invalid Argument pattern - Affirming the consequent 5) Valid Argument pattern - Affirming the consequent 6) Valid Argument pattern - modus tollens Exercise 4.2 1) God is in his heaven So, all is right with the world All is not right with the world So, God is not in his heaven 2) Lino is telling the truth So, he will admit to all charges. He will not admit to all charges So, he is not telling the truth. 3) Some wars are just So, pacifism is false Pacifism is not false So, some wars are not just 4) The new vaccine prevents the spread of virus So, the researchers who developed the vaccine should get the Nobel prize. The new researchers who developed the vaccine should not get the Nobel prize So, new vaccine does not prevents the spread of virus Exercise 4.3 1) Conclusion Ideas that explain God should be the enforcer of moral law is not reasonable. Premise 1 In the first place, as an empirical hypothesis about the psychology of human beings, it is questionable. Premise 2- There is no unambiguous evidence that theists are more moral than non-theists. Premise 3- Not only have psychological studies failed to find a significant correlation between frequency of religious worship and moral conduct, but convicted criminals are much more likely to be theists than atheists Premise 4 - Second, the threat of divine punishment cannot impose a moral obligation, for night does not make right. 2) Conclusion - He has a right to speak out against President Bush. Premise 1 - I'm wondering if all the illegal drugs that Nick Gillespie used to take are finally getting to him. Premise 2 - The millionaire president who waited out the Vietnam War in the Texas Air National Guard. Premise 3 - That kind of ad hominem attack is not only disrespectful to a man who is doing a damned good job as commander-in-chief (with approval ratings of more than 80 percent); Premise 4 - It reminds me of the garbage rhetoric that I might see if I were reading Ted Rall, or Susan Sontag, or one of the other hate-mongering, American-bashing, leftist whiners. It detracts from the whole point of the article. 3) Conclusion - The position is certainly untenable Premise 1- The first thing that must occur t0 anyone studying moral subjectivism [the View that the tightness 0r wrongness of an action depends on the beliefs 0f an individual 0r group] seriously is that the View allows the possibility that an action can be both right and not right, 0r wrong and not wrong, etc. Premise 2- This possibility exists because, as we have seen, the subjectivist Claims that the moral character 0f an action is determined by individual subjective states; and these states can vary from person to person, even when directed toward the same action on the same occasion. Premise 3- Hence one and the same action can evidently be determined to havesimultaneouslyradically different moral characters.More Articles From Philosophy
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
