CHAPTER 3 Arguments Weak and Strong – Good Reasoning Matters A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking test bank

---

 

Download  file with the answers

Not a member!
Create a FREE account here to get access and download this file with answers

---

CHAPTER 3
Arguments, Weak and Strong

Multiple Choice Questions

1. Who has the burden of proof in the situation described below?

A team of scientific researchers have declared that they have proof that cola has properties that are good for the health of consumers.

a) The onus is on the opponents who say that cola has no healthful properties.
b) The onus is on the producers of cola beverages to make more colas available for the health of its consumers.
c) The onus is on the scientists to prove their findings.
d) The onus is on the consumer to drink more cola.
e) None of the above

2. Acceptable premises are the first component of good arguments. What is the second component of good arguments?
a) A conclusion on the same topic as the premises
b) A conclusion that is also acceptable
c) A con¬clusion that is a logical consequence of its premises
d) A reasonable arguer who agrees to take on the burden of proof
e) None of the above

3. In a strong argument, what should be the relationship between the premises and the conclusion?
a) A strong argument must have premises that lead to its conclusion.
b) A strong argument must have premises that follow from the conclusion.
c) A strong argument must have premises and conclusions that say essentially the same thing.
d) A strong argument must have premises that are irrelevant to the conclusion.
e) All of the above

4. In ________, it is impossible for us to accept that the premises are true but still reject the conclusion.
a) deductively valid arguments
b) inductively valid arguments
c) deductively invalid arguments
d) inductively invalid arguments
e) none of the above

5. Which of the following sentences is positively relevant to the sentence below?

“Tomorrow is the perfect day for a picnic.”

a) Tomorrow is a mid-summer Saturday.
b) Tomorrow is my birthday.
c) The weather forecast for tomorrow includes a 95 per cent probability of thundershowers.
d) Picnics include delicious food.
e) None of the above

6. Which of the following sentences is negative relevant to the sentence below?

“Tomorrow is the perfect day for a picnic.”

a) Tomorrow is a mid-summer Saturday.
b) Tomorrow is my birthday.
c) The weather forecast for tomorrow includes a 95 per cent probability of thundershowers.
d) Picnics include delicious food.
e) None of the above

7. Which of the following lists best represents the variation of the strength of the link between positively relevant premises to their conclusion (from strongest to weakest)?
a) Inductively valid, inductively invalid, deductively invalid
b) Inductively invalid, deductively invalid, deductively valid
c) Deductively valid, inductively valid, inductively invalid
d) Deductively invalid, inductively invalid, inductively valid
e) Deductively invalid, deductively valid, inductively invalid

8. A(n) ________ is an attempt to shift debate away from the issue that is the topic of an argument. Instead of addressing the strength or weakness of the argument, it deflects attention to a new topic that is not relevant to the one at hand.
a) argument scheme
b) burden of proof
c) red herring
d) straw man
e) none of the above

9. In the world of argument, a(n) ________ is a false account of an oppo¬nent’s point of view. Doing so violates our obligation to represent opposing positions fairly and accurately.
a) argument scheme
b) burden of proof
c) red herring
d) straw man
e) none of the above

10. In developing a more systematic approach to argument, and one that can tell us how to construct valid arguments, we can rely on the observation that individual argu¬ments come in a variety of repeating patterns that can be identified in terms of the kinds of premises and conclusions they involve. We call these patterns ________.
a) argument schemes
b) burdens of proof
c) red herrings
d) straw men
e) none of the above

11. Which of the following schemes is sometimes called “universal instantiation”?
a) All X are Y, all Y are Z, therefore all X are Z.
b) After a thorough search, we have not been able to find any evidence of hypoth¬esis X, so it is probably false.
c) If X, then Y. If Y, then Z. So if X, then Z.
d) All X are Y. z is X. z must be Y.
e) None of the above

12. ________ are schemes that are used to criticize arguments of a particu¬lar type, by showing that the premises in question are unacceptable or that the argu¬ment is not valid.
a) Critical schemes
b) Counter-schemes
c) Schemes of unacceptability
d) Invalidity schemes
e) None of the above

13. Which of the following statements best describes the passage below?

Highway 15 cannot be the road to Bloomingfield. The road to Bloomingfield is a gravel road and Highway 15 is paved.

a) This is an inductive argument.
b) This is a deductive argument.
c) This argument is neither inductive nor deductive.
d) This is not an argument.
e) None of the above

14. Which of the following statements best describes the passage below?

The obvious explanation that the phrase “kick the bucket” comes from standing on a bucket and kicking it away while hanging from a rafter is possibly not correct. “Bucket” is an old word for a beam or yoke from which anything may be carried or hung. Thus the reference might be to the beam from which slaughtered pigs are suspended by their heels.

a) This is an inductive argument.
b) This is a deductive argument.
c) This argument is neither inductive nor deductive.
d) This is not an argument.
e) None of the above

15. Which of the following statements best describes the passage below?

Jennifer sneezed a few minutes ago, and now she’s blowing her nose. Jennifer must have hay fever.

a) This is an inductive argument.
b) This is a deductive argument.
c) This argument is neither inductive nor deductive.
d) This is not an argument.
e) None of the above

16. Which of the following statements best describes the passage below?

Since Amy and John have the same natural maternal grand-parents, they are cousins.

a) This is an inductive argument.
b) This is a deductive argument.
c) This argument is neither inductive nor deductive.
d) This is not an argument.
e) None of the above

True or False Questions

1. An argument can only be good or bad; there are no shades of grey. We use the terms “strong” and “weak” to describe whether the argument is good or bad.

2. A strong argu¬ment should convince a reasonable audience that its conclusion is plausible, but it will rarely be so strong that it cannot be strengthened or responded to.

3. A weak argument is always so weak that it cannot be rehabilitated, no matter what.

4. Argument evaluation encompasses a continuum from very weak to very strong that contains abundant, perhaps infinite, shades of grey.

5. Not every claim or situation calls for argument.

6. Questions about burden of proof and an arguer’s obligation to defend premises only lie behind some arguments, because only some arguments offer premises in support of their conclusions.

7. In cases where the premises’ burden of proof lies with the arguer, the arguer will have to build sub-arguments that back his or her premises.

8. Over time, the burden of proof in a particular area changes as our view of the world changes.

9. Burden of proof tells us when we are obligated to provide an argument.

10. Prem¬ises of a strong argument may be acceptable even though a reasonable audience might hesitate to go so far as to call them “true.”

11. Even when the conclusion offered is not a logical consequence of the premises, the premises lead us to the conclusion.

12. A weak argument is an argument without acceptable premises or with a conclusion that does not follow from them, and possibly both.

13. By definition a weak argument is an argument that fails to satisfy one or both of the criteria for strong arguments—the argument that has acceptable premises or a conclusion that does not follow from its premises.

14. In deductively valid arguments, the link between the premises and the conclusion could be made stronger.

15. In deductively valid arguments, anyone who understands the argument must accept the conclu¬sion if they accept the premises.

16. In inductively valid arguments, if people do not accept the conclusion despite accepting the premises, they have misunderstood the meaning of the statements that make up the argument or are fundamentally irrational.

17. All deductively valid argu¬ments are strong arguments.

18. Inductively invalid arguments are always weak, for their conclusions are not a logical consequence of their premises.

19. A strong argument proposes premises that are positively relevant to its conclusion.

20. Positively rel¬evant premises always guarantee a strong argument.

21. Strong arguments require premises that are sufficient to establish that a conclusion is more likely than not.

22. In a deductively valid argument, the premises are always relevant and sufficient to the conclusion.

23. When evaluating argumentation, we need only ensure that our own arguments are relevant to the contexts in which they arise; we need not worry about internal relevance.
24. In judging arguments, we generally conflate questions of acceptability with questions of validity.

25. All of the arguments we have to deal with in our reasoning will correspond to a scheme or counter-scheme.

Short Answer Questions

1. In situations where there is disagreement, who carries the burden of proof?

2. When are an argument’s premises acceptable? What is their role in good arguments?

3. What are deductively valid arguments?

4. What are deductively invalid arguments?

5. What are inductively valid arguments?

6. How do we know that an argument is valid?

7. What does it mean for an argument to be “contextually irrelevant”?

8. What is a fallacy?

 

Short Answer Questions

1. In circumstances where there is disagreement, the person who carries the burden of proof is the person who has an obligation, or onus, to defend (and in this way “prove”) their views with argument. (p. 53)

2. One essential feature of good arguments is acceptable premises—i.e. premises the intended audience will (or should) accept. If they believe that the premises are false or misconceived or in some other way unacceptable, then the argument does not provide them with reasons for believing the conclusion. In a strong argument, the premises of an argument function like a vehicle that takes the audience to its conclusion. In an argument with unacceptable premises, the members of the audience might be com¬pared to passengers who refuse to get on a bus which cannot, in view of this, take them to its destination. When we say that an argument’s premises should be “acceptable” we mean that they should be accepted as true by the audience it is addressed to. (p. 55)

3. In “deductive” arguments the link between premises and conclusions is so strong that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. In arguments of this sort, it is impossible for us to accept that the premises are true and still reject the conclusion. (p. 60)

4. Deductively invalid arguments contain a conclusion that does not necessarily fol¬low from the premises. In these cases, one can reject an argument’s conclusion even while accepting that its premises are true. This means that the link between an argu¬ment’s premises and conclusion is not as strong as the link in deductively valid reason¬ing, but it does not mean that all deductively invalid arguments should be rejected. (p. 61)

5. In the case of inductively valid arguments we can imagine that the premises of an argument are true and the conclusion false, but the premises still make the conclusion likely, and in this way provide reasonable support for it. Inductively valid arguments are characterized by a more tentative link between their premises and their conclusions. They function as an essential part of ordinary reasoning. We rely on them in many situations characterized by uncertainty in which they serve as an alternative to deduc¬tive arguments. (pp. 61–2)

6. When judging validity, it may help to consider the premises of an argument from two points of view. First, we can ask whether the premises in an argument are relevant to the conclusion. We count a premise or group of premises as relevant when it provides some—that is, any—evidence that makes the conclusion more or less likely. Premises are positively relevant when they make a conclusion more likely and negatively relevant when they make it less likely. We can, therefore, develop the notion of logical consequence by saying that an argu¬ment’s conclusion follows from its premises if they are (1) relevant to the conclusion, and (2) sufficient to establish it as probable. (pp. 62–3)

7. If a context assumes one understanding of an issue and then an arguer ignores or misrepresents that meaning, then the argument will be contextually irrelevant. Strong arguments will avoid this error and remain relevant to the appropriate context. (p. 66)

8. A fallacy is a common mistake in argument. An argument that is contextually situated properly addresses whatever issue is at hand, responds appropriately to any prior argument it answers or builds upon, and anticipates reasonable objections from opponents. When arguments fail in this respect, they can exhibit the kind of weakness that has been traditionally identified as “fallacies.” (p. 66)