Phil 04, Section 09, Fall 2010 Homework Six

Anderson, Due Tuesday, Nov. 30

For each of the following, match the name of the fallacy with the appropriate logical form of the argument. The possible fallacies are ad hominem, slippery slope, begging the question, straw man, appeal to popularity, false dilemma, fallacy of denying the antecedent, appeal to ignorance and hasty generalization.

(a)It has not been shown that S is true.

Therefore, S is false.

(b) Almost everyone believes that S is true.

Therefore, S is probably true.

A is false.

So, B is true. (Assume the first premise ignores a third alternative C.)

(d) A poll taken in my class showed that 10% of the students regularly smoked marijuana.

Therefore, 10% of CSUS students regularly smoke marijuana.

(e) A2, a distorted version of argument A1, is invalid.

Therefore, A1 is invalid.

(f) Doing A, taken in isolation, would be a good thing.

But if we do A then it will lead to B and B will lead to C and C would be awful.

Therefore, we shouldn’t do A. (Assume premise two is possible but hasn’t been shown to be probable.)

(g) If A then B.

A is false.

Therefore, B is false.

(h) Henry asserted statement S.

There is something objectionable about Henry.

Therefore, S is false.

(i)S is true.

The truth of S presupposes R is true.

Hence, R is true.

The label on ConAgra’s “Kid Cuisine Chicken Dinner” (sold in many supermarkets) says it is 88% fat free. As a reasonable consumer, approximately what percentage of an average child’s daily fat intake would you conclude the dinner contains:

(a)About 88%

(b)At least 50%

(c)Approximately 12%

(d)Impossible to tell from the information given.

Ralph: Legalizing drugs is a good idea because they could then be regulated for quality and taxed. And it would permit us to shift law enforcement resources toward preventing more harmful behaviors. Joseph: I’m opposed to new taxes of any kind. So I cannot agree with you about legalizing drugs.

Explain why Joseph’s response begs the question.

The kidnappers have taken eight people hostage and are holding them at a farmhouse just outside of town. If the SWAT team assaults the farmhouse, the hostages could be killed. But if we give in to the kidnapper’s demands for a ransom and safe passage out of the country, we’ll only be encouraging more kidnappings of innocent people. There’s nothing we can do.

Show that this argument commits the fallacy of false dilemma.

If you ever smoke a joint, then you are on the path to perdition. One puff and there is no stopping the inevitable fall. Next it will be snorting coke, then shooting up heroin, leading to addiction and hepatitis from contaminated needles.

This argument obviously commits the slippery slope fallacy. Explain why it is fallacious, that is, what has the author failed to do?

Obviously some people do have genuine experiences of having lived previous lives. Of course there are some skeptics who doubt the reports of those who claim to remember their past lives. The skeptics say that those who claim to remember past lives are either lying to themselves or have an overactive imagination. But we should keep in mind that those who can remember their past lives are in a spiritually advanced stage, for only those who achieve such spiritual advancement can recall their past lives. And certainly no one who has reached such a spiritually advanced state would lie or be deceived by his or her imagination.

This argument begs the question. Explain where their mistake lies.

Regarding Essay Six in the text, Misleading the Patient for Fun and Profit (pp.487-490):

(a)What is the main point Vaughn argues for in this essay?

(b)How does Vaughn respond to the counterargument “If the [nonstandard] treatment itself is harmless, why shouldn’t suffering people be given a chance to try it?”

(c)Some persons have tried all the standard treatments for their illness and found them unhelpful and therefore turned to alternative medicine.

Does Vaughn have a problem with that? How does he respond to such a

person?