CHAPTER 8 Weighing Evidence – 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 8
Weighing Evidence

Multiple Choice Questions

1. If you determine a premise to be questionable, which question should you be asking of yourself?
a) What evidence would be required to make it acceptable?
b) What makes you think that the premise is questionable?
c) Are you sure that the premise is not acceptable?
d) All of the above
e) None of the above

2. What best describes the acceptability of the following sentence?

“A glass of chocolate milk is the best post-workout recovery drink.”

a) Acceptable without further support
b) Unacceptable
c) Questionable (needing further support)
d) All of the above
e) None of the above

3. What best describes the acceptability of the following sentence?

“The Earth is flat and a person would fall off into an abyss if he got to the edge.”

a) Acceptable without further support
b) Unacceptable
c) Questionable (needing further support)
d) All of the above
e) None of the above

4. What best describes the acceptability of the following sentence?

“How tall might an indoor potted avocado tree grow in North America?”

a) Acceptable without further support
b) Unacceptable
c) Questionable (needing further support)
d) All of the above
e) None of the above

5. What best describes the acceptability of the following sentence?

“Humans require oxygen to survive.”

a) Acceptable without further support
b) Unacceptable
c) Questionable (needing further support)
d) All of the above
e) None of the above

6. What best describes the sort of claim being made in the following statement?

“Hummingbirds can fly backwards.”

a) Factual claim
b) Value judgement
c) Exclamation
d) Both A and B
e) None of the above

7. What best describes the sort of claim being made in the following statement?

(A discussion-board comment regarding the protests from the members of the Westboro Baptist Church): “If everyone goes to hell besides these guys, I’d rather go to hell.”

a) Factual claim
b) Value judgement
c) Exclamation
d) Both A and B
e) None of the above

8. Which of the following could count as an authority for an appeal to authority?
a) Professionals who are renowned in their fields
b) Objective consumer advocacy groups
c) Documentaries
d) Reference books
e) All of the above

9. Which of the following is NOT a universal condition of premise acceptability?
a) Acceptable by definition/self-evidently acceptable
b) Acceptable by common knowledge
c) Acceptable due to its being defended in a reasonable sub-argument
d) Acceptable due to its being believed to be true by the arguer
e) None of the above

10. Which of the following is NOT a condition of premise unacceptability?
a) Unacceptable due to inconsistency with another premise
b) Unacceptable as a result of begging the question
c) Unacceptable because of problems with the language
d) Unacceptable due to having an opponent
e) None of the above

11. Which condition of acceptability does the following claim most obviously meet?

“Coffee contains caffeine, which is a stimulant.”

a) Acceptable by definition, or self-evidently acceptable
b) Acceptable as a factual statement reporting an observation or as a statement of eye-witness testimony
c) Acceptable by common knowledge or assent
d) Acceptable because it is defended in a reasonable sub-argument
e) Acceptable on the authority of the arguer or an expert

12. Which condition of acceptability does this claim most obviously meet?

“I saw Eileen light the candles.”

a) Acceptable by definition, or self-evidently acceptable
b) Acceptable as a factual statement reporting an observation or as a statement of eye-witness testimony
c) Acceptable by common knowledge or assent
d) Acceptable because it is defended in a reasonable sub-argument
e) Acceptable on the authority of the arguer or an expert

13. Is the following set of claims acceptable? If not, which condition of unacceptability do the claims meet?

The government says that it has a strong commitment to sustainable environmental practices. The government has made cuts in all aspects of support of sustainable environment research.

a) Unacceptable because of an inconsistency
b) Unacceptable as a result of begging the question
c) Unacceptable because of problems with language
d) Acceptable
e) None of the above

14. Is the following claim acceptable? If not, which condition of unacceptability does the claim meet?

My mother told my sister that she had a hole in her shoe.
a) Unacceptable because of an inconsistency
b) Unacceptable as a result of begging the question
c) Unacceptable because of problems with language
d) Acceptable
e) None of the above

15. Which of the following claims about premise acceptability is NOT one with which you should concern yourself?
a) When assessing the sufficiency of evidence in an argument, consider how strongly the conclusion has been expressed.
b) The more general the claim, the more evidence is needed.
c) Claims that are expressed with high degrees of certainty are particularly difficult to support without sufficient evidence.
d) The wordier the claim, the more evidence is needed.
e) You should concern yourself with all of the above.

16. Which of these is NOT one of the three criteria for strong arguments?
a) Ensure that the argument is no longer than 250 words.
b) Ensure that the arguer has provided a balanced case and discharged all of his or her obligations.
c) Do not draw a conclusion too hastily.
d) When assessing the sufficiency of evidence in an argument, consider how strongly the conclusion has been expressed.
e) None of the above

17. ________ is a measure of the relationship between an argument’s premises and conclusions.
a) Contextual relevance
b) Internal relevance
c) Premise relevance
d) Premise sufficiency
e) None of the above

18. ________ increase (or decrease) the probability that the conclusion should be accepted.
a) Relevant premises
b) Long premises
c) Premises on the same topic
d) Rhyming premises
e) None of the above

19. When assessing the sufficiency of evidence in an argument, consider how ________ the conclusion has been expressed.
a) loudly
b) eloquently
c) strongly
d) wordily
e) none of the above
20. ________ involve conclusions drawn before enough evidence is in.
a) Hasty conclusions
b) Drawing conclusions
c) Premature conclusions
d) Immature conclusions
e) None of the above

True or False Questions

1. The two criteria used to judge the acceptability of an argument’s premises ((1) whether they are claims that the argument’s intended audience would accept without further support, and whether (2) they are reason¬able claims) mean the same thing when our audience is the universal audience.

2. If you lack evidence needed to decide whether a claim is acceptable or not, you should simply reject it.

3. If you evaluate a premise as being questionable, and the evidence that you would require to make it acceptable is an impossible request, then you can be certain that the claim is indeed questionable.

4. Sometimes arguers will offer some of their own observations as evidence for their conclusion. Such premises should be rejected.

5. Some arguments are based on the claims of an expert. You should generally accept these premises.

6. You can accept any claim so long as it is offered by some kind of expert.

7. In cases where we do not have access to the information we would need to judge a premise, or where we simply lack the expertise to make such an assessment ourselves, it is legitimate to rely on an authority.

8. Positively relevant premises increase the probability that the conclusion should be accepted.

9. Premises we have judged acceptable are not necessarily relevant.

10. In extended arguments, as in simple arguments, premises that are not directly relevant to the main conclusion are not necessary for the argument to be strong and may actually water down the strength of the argument.

11. There are times when arguments introduce relevant evidence that actually undermines or goes against a conclusion.

12. When evaluating an argument, the formula to follow to determine whether sufficient evidence has been provided is y = 3x, where y is the number of premises, and x is the number of conclusions and sub-conclusions in an argument.

13. In judging whether arguments are deductively valid, we need to consider questions of sufficiency as well as relevance.

14. If an arguer selectively presents only one side of an issue, she is engaging in “spe¬cial pleading.”

15. If a definition required to establish a claim in an argument is omitted, then the evidence for that claim is insufficient.

Short Answer Questions

1. What are the three decisions we can make with respect to a claim’s acceptability?

2. When is a premise judged to be acceptable?

3. What is the strongest type of self-evident claim? Explain your answer.

4. When should we reject claims whose acceptability depends on a person’s testimony?

5. How does knowledge about the audience influence our judgement of acceptability of claims deemed acceptable by “common knowledge”?

6. Explain the importance of sub-arguments.

7. When are premises considered to be unacceptable?

8. What does it mean to say that an argument’s premises are inconsistent?

9. What is begging the question?

10. What does it mean for a premise to be internally relevant?

Short Answer Questions

1. (1) It is acceptable without further support. The statement itself is of such a nature, or is supported by other statements to such a degree, that a reasonable audience will accept it.
(2) It is unacceptable. The statement conflicts with what is known to be the case such that a reasonable audience (and evaluator) has reason to reject it.
(3) It is questionable. The statement is neither clearly acceptable nor clearly unac¬ceptable because insufficient information is presented to decide either way. (p. 199)

2. A premise is judged acceptable if
(1) it would be accepted without further support by the audience for which it is intended, given the background knowledge of its members and the beliefs and values they hold; and
(2) it is a premise that would be accepted by reasonable people. (p. 200)

It is not easy to categorize claims as those that would and would not be accepted by reasonable people. What you need to consider is whether a premise:
• conforms to (does not violate), alone or in combination with other premises, the principles of good reasoning; and
• could in principle be defended in front of the universal audience.

3. Claims that can be established as acceptable by appealing to definitions are the strongest type of self-evident claim, because the attempt to deny it results in an absurdity. A claim that is acceptable by virtue of the meaning of its component terms is acceptable in view of the way in which we use language and so relies to some extent on what is commonly known by a community of language users. (p. 200)

4. If someone has proved repeatedly that he or she is untrustworthy, then that is a reason not to accept what he or she says. If the state¬ment lacks plausibility then we are justified in doubting it. We expect personal testimony to conform to the general structure of experience. In other cases, testimony is difficult to rely on because different individuals provide inconsistent testimony. (p. 201)

5. Unless the argument is specifically aimed at a universal audience, we allow statements based on the common knowledge of the community being addressed. (p. 202)

6. An arguer is obligated to support those premises that would not be otherwise accept¬able to the audience being addressed. They must accept this burden of proof where required to do so. When an arguer fulfills this obligation, and the support provided is reasonable, then we have grounds for finding the supported premise to be acceptable. Once supported in this way, the premise in question becomes a conclusion of a strong sub-argument. (p. 202)

7. In many instances, a premise will be judged unacceptable because it fails to satisfy—i.e., it specifically violates—one or more of the conditions of acceptability. In other cases, the failure to satisfy a condition of acceptability may render the premise questionable but not explicitly unacceptable. However, beyond these considerations, there are some additional conditions of unacceptability that should be recognized:

(1) Unacceptable because of an inconsistency;
(2) Unacceptable as a result of begging the question;
and
(3) Unacceptable because of problems with language. (pp. 205–7)

8. Inconsistency is a weakness in argumentation that is brought to light by carefully read¬ing an argument’s components and considering their meaning. It is possible for two (or more) premises in an argument to be perfectly acceptable when considered individu¬ally. But when they are appraised together we encounter a situation where they cannot both be acceptable as support for the same conclusion. (p. 205)

9. Begging the question is a specific violation of the principles of good reason¬ing. It occurs when arguments are “circular”—when the premises assume the very things that should be established by the conclusions. (p. 206)

10. If a premise increases the likelihood of the conclusion it is intended to support, or if it decreases the likelihood of that conclusion, then the premise is relevant to the conclu¬sion. If neither of these conditions holds, then the premise is not relevant. (p. 210)