Reference no: EM131326787

Save this test on your computer, and complete the questions by marking correct answers with the "text color" function ( ) located on the "home" toolbar

Section I.Multiple Choice/True and False

1.One of the central tenets of homeopathy is the (unfounded) assertion that water retains a "memory" of substances dissolved in it, even when the solution becomes so weak that no trace of the original substance is present. However, if we accept this hypothesis, then any quantity of tap water would have already acquired all the beneficial chemicals, and all the harmful ones too. This . . . scenario weakens the hypothesis of water memory.

This refutation is a(n)

a. reduction to the absurd
b. counterexample
c. appeal to countervailing evidence
d. post hoc
e. suppressio veri

The premises of this argument are dependent: "Dogs make better pets than cats. They're smarter, more sociable, more loyal, and easier to train."

True
False

2.If we can show that any premise of an argument is false, that argument has been successfully refuted.

True
False

3.We may have good reason to question the credibility of a source if

a. the source was not in a good position to judge accurately
b. the source has proven unreliable in the past
c. the issue is not one that can be settled by expert opinion
d. all of the above

4.Showing that one of its crucial* premises is in principle unverifiablerefutes (defeats) the argument

True
False

*Note: What Bassham titles a "critical" premise I am referring to as a "crucial premise", because I want to avoid the ambiguity involved in the former expression (between "critical" as essential and "critical" as criticizing.)

5.The premises of this argument are dependent: "Dogs make better pets than cats. They're smarter, more sociable, more loyal, and easier to train."

True
False

6.The circumstance that a crucial premise is unsupported always renders an argument bad. (careful)

True
False

7.The principle of rational acceptance is a crucial technique for evaluating any claim. (careful)

True
False

8 There are legitimate and important ways of criticizing an argument that still don't contribute to refuting it.
True
False

9.A fuzzy argument can still be a good argument due to its intrinsic merits.
True
False

Section II.Short Answers
10.Please indicate any two of the characteristics that might serve to justify accepting a claim as a legitimate premise.

11. Name any three of the conditions that might lead to question a claim based on your own sensory experience?

12.Please indicate any 2 of the methods for showing a premise to be dubious or false:

13.What is the principle of rational acceptance?

14.Glenn Beck: "The Federal Government threatening to take over the State Parks if the State Government decides to privatize its parks! That's sheer robbery!"

(Some background information: The parks in question were Federal Lands granted to the States under the condition that they be and remain public parks.)
Explain what is wrong with Beck's argument here: What principle(s) of good argumentation does it violate?

15.Are there cases where we might accept claims that violate our background information? If so, when and why?

Section III.Hands-On

16. (a) What are some of the possible ways of introducing an argumentative essay? (b) Which do you regard as the most effective? Why?

17. Please refute the following claim:

"There are no dangerous animals in Lompoc!"

 What is the name of the technique you utilized to do this?

18. Indicate briefly (some of) the means of approaching an audience which is hostile, close-minded or committed to a different position than yours.

19 It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. If a man, holding a belief . . . keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind...and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it - the life of that man is one long sin against mankind. W. K Clifford
Strong words!

(a) How might you go about defending Clifford's claim?

(b) How might you go about attacking it?

(c) (c) How would you evaluate both of the lines of argument you have just developed? In each case: why so?