Question 1.1. (TCO 1) “Thinking about thinking” is the definition of what? (Points : 4)
Development of arguments
Measure of good sense
Development of critical skills
Writing for clarity
Question 2.2. (TCO 1, 2, 4) What is the principle concern when handling an issue? (Points : 4)
Whether a given claim is true or not
Whether the claim at issue attaches to the conclusion or not
Whether the claim at issue is clearly understood
Whether the claim is not ambiguous
Whether the claim at issue is open for discussion and resolution
Question 3.3. (TCO 1, 2, 3) What are the two parts of an argument? (Points : 4)
Description and detail
Problem and proposal
Explanation and clarification
Definition and example
Premise and conclusion
Question 4.4. (TCOs 2, 3) Inductive arguments support conclusions and are described as stronger or weaker. What is meant by that description? (Points : 4)
It proves the conclusion.
It is a measure of how much support a premise provides for a conclusion.
It is a measure to show opportunities for improvement.
It is a measure of how certain the conclusion is.
It provides encouragement for believing the claim in the conclusion.
Question 5.5. (TCO 1, 2) The mode of persuasion that Aristotle defined as logos refers to arguments based on what? (Points : 4)
Whether a decision is ethical
Being alert to influences in one�s thinking
The speaker�s personal attributes
The audience�s emotions
Using information and reasoning
Question 6.6. (TCO 6) After identifying the author’s conclusion or thesis in a passage, what is the next step for understanding it? (Points : 4)
Locating the reasons that have been offered to support the conclusion
Separating the argument from other nonargumentative material attached to it
Identifying prejudicial coloring in the language of the passage
Clarifying the context of the passage
Determining the exact meaning of the thesis
Question 7.7. (TCOs 6, 7, 8, 9) Which of the five items below is usually NOT a part of a good argumentative essay? (Points : 4)
A statement of the issue
A statement of one’s position on the issue
A statement of one’s authority or expertise
Arguments that support one’s position on the issue
Rebuttals of arguments that support a contrary position
Question 8.8. (TCOs 6, 8, 9) What does it mean to say that a word, phrase, or sentence is ambiguous? (Points : 4)
That the word or phrase has more than one meaning
That there is a rhetorical activity being employed for the purpose of persuasion
That the word or phrase is not commonly used in conversational speech
That the word or phrase is being used out of context
That the words in a phrase are not being used according to accepted patterns
Question 9.9. (TCOs 2, 6, 7, 8) Which of the following would suggest a lack of credibility in a claim? (Points : 4)
When it is accompanied by other claims that have credibility
The claim conflicts with what we have observed
When the person presenting the claim has something to gain by our believing it
When it brings something we have not learned before
When it comes from an interested party
Question 10.10. (TCOs 1, 6, 7, 9) What is the meaning of the rhetorical device called a stereotype? (Points : 4)
Assumptions about all members of a group based on a single member
A thought or image about a group of people based on little or no evidence
A euphemism for opposing groups
A multiple view of an identified group of people or objects
A categorization of similar people
Question 11.11. (TCOs 1, 7) What factor identifies a loaded question? (Points : 4)
It has a true premise and an untrue conclusion.
It requires an answer from you.
It is very persuasive based on true and accepted premise claims.
It disguises the correct answer.
It is based on one or more unwarranted or unjustified assumptions
Question 12.12. (TCOs 1, 2) What is the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy? (Points : 4)
Attack on an argument based on the events coinciding with its presentation
Support of an argument based on the professional role of the person presenting it
Support of an argument based on the courage of the presenter
Attack on an argument based on internal consistencies
Attack on an argument based on the personal requirements and obligations of the person presenting it
Question 13.13. (TCOs 6, 7, 8) To the overall topic of burden of proof, what is the purpose of the rule called special circumstances? (Points : 4)
Sometimes the burden of proof must be shared because the evidence is so weak and indirect.
Sometimes the pursuit of truth trumps other considerations about which party bears the burden of truth.
Sometimes the risks are so great that all parties must bear the burden of proof.
Sometimes the burden of proof must rest with the innocent party in a court case because the evidence is so compelling.
Sometimes situations, such as court cases, place the burden of proof upon one particular party for reasons other than pursuit of truth.
Question 14.14. (TCOs 1, 2) About what does a categorical claim say something? (Points : 4)
The burden of proof
A shared interest in the outcome
The orderly processes of biology
The primary documents of early philosophers
Classes of things
Question 15.15. (TCOs 3, 4) For what purpose were Venn diagrams created? (Points : 4)
To show the primary characteristics of things
To show how nouns and noun phrases relate
To demonstrate the orderly processes of biology.
To give a graphic illustration of standard-form claims
To illustrate the classes of things
Question 16.16. (TCOs 3, 4, 8, 9) Claims are equivalent under what terms? (Points : 4)
Under no circumstances could both be false.
Under no circumstances could one of them be true and the other false.
Under no circumstances could the truth of one transfer to the other one.
Under no circumstances could the conclusion be true if the premise is false.
Under no circumstance can they both be translated into differing standard forms of categorical logic.
Question 17.17. (TCOs 2, 3, 4) Logical relationships between corresponding claims of standard-form categorical logic are illustrated in the graphic square of opposition. What is known about two claims when they are called subcontrary claims? (Points : 4)
They would share the same predicate term.
They would share the same subject term.
They need not be in the same standard form of translation.
They can both be true, but they cannot both be false.
Only one of them can be true.
Question 18.18. (TCOs 2, 3, 4) How do we work the categorical operation called obversion? (Points : 4)
By changing the claims from being in the same class to being outside the class
By limiting the scope of terms used to those within a class
By changing a claim from positive to negative, or vice versa
By changing one claim to referring outside of a class but leaving the other one inside the class
By making an argument invalid in form
Question 19.19. (TCOs 2, 5) What question is addressed in concerns for bias in sampling? (Points : 4)
Is the sample size large enough to overcome issues of random sampling of a diverse target population?
What exactly is the feature in the target population that needs to be carefully included in the sample?
Is there sufficient probability that the conclusion will support a hypothesis about the target population?
Is there sufficient probability that the conclusion will support a hypothesis about the sample?
Is any related factor present in the sample in a frequency different from what we would expect to find in the target population?
Question 20.20. (TCOs 2, 5) What question is asked about the size of a sample in a study? (Points : 4)
Is the sample limited to persons with a vested interest in the outcome?
Is the sample large enough to reflect the diverse array of factors in the population that might affect the presence or absence of the feature we are interested in?
Have we enough resources of personnel and money to work through the study well and on time?
Is the sampling error rate acceptable?
Is the sample small enough that we can handle the study and give it enough attention to detail?
Question 21.21. (TCOs 1, 5, 8, 9) What is the inductive �fallacy of anecdotal evidence�? (Points : 4)
A version of hasty generalizing where the sample is just a story
Bypassing standard questions to ask for opinions
Telling personal experiences
Bypassing standard questioning to accept data that does not match the possible answers
Asking hypothetical questions of “what if…”
Question 22.22. (TCOs 1, 2) What is an analogue? (Points : 4)
A version of hasty generalizing where the sample is just a story
The idea that one can understand predictability and overcome its randomness
Telling personal experiences
The idea that sequences of occurrences can be predicted
A thing that has similar attributes to another thing
Question 23.23. (TCOs 1, 2, 3) What are the two kinds of causal explanations? (Points : 4)
Physical and behavioral
Analogous and relevant
True and false
General and specific
Descriptive and prescriptive
Question 24.24. (TCOs 2, 6) The utilitarian ethics are best summarized as (Points : 4)
if an act will produce more happiness than will alternatives, it is the right thing to do.
good acts produce good outcomes.
hedonic pleasure is the highest good.
what is good is determined by what is useful in a practical sense.
pain is to be avoided at all costs.
Question 25.25. (TCOs 1, 6) “If someone appears to be violating the consistency principle, then the burden of proof is on that person to show he or she is in fact not violating the principle.” What fallacy is being committed by the person who violates this statement? (Points : 4)
Inconsistency ad hominem
Justified exception to the rule
SHORT ESSAY QUESTION
Question 1. 1. (TCOs 3, 6, 7, 9) Here is a passage that contains a rhetorical fallacy.
Name that fallacy, and in a paragraph, explain why the argument is irrelevant to the point of the passage. Here is your example for this question:
Republican says, “What do you think of our party’s new plan for Medicare?”
Democrat says, “I think it is pretty good, as a matter of fact.”
Republican, “Oh? Why is that?”
Democrat, “Because you Republicans haven’t even offered a plan, that’s why!” (Points : 15)
Question 2. 2. (TCOs 5, 8) In the example below, identify the presumed cause and the presumed effect. Does the example contain or imply a causal claim, a hypothesis, or an explanation that cannot be tested?
If it does fall into one of those categories, tell whether the problem is due to vagueness, circularity, or some other problem of language.
Also tell whether there might be some way to test the situation if it is possible at all.
Here is your example:
This part of the coastline is subject to mudslides because there is a lack of mature vegetation growing on it. (Points : 15)
Question 3. 3. (TCOs 2, 4) Explain in what way the thinking of the following statement is wrong or defective. Give reasons for your judgment.
I believe that violent video games contribute to sexual violence and other forms of antisocial behavior. No one has ever shown that it doesn�t. (Points : 10)
Question 4. 4. (TCOs 3, 9) Moral relativism is the belief that what is right or wrong may differ from group to group, or culture to culture. What are the difficulties of moral relativism? (Points : 10)
Question 5. 5. (TCOs 6, 7, 9) Here is a short essay about an investigation.
There are also four questions/tasks; write a paragraph to answer each one of them.
1. Identify the causal hypothesis at issue.
2. Identify what kind of investigation it is.
3. There are control and experimental groups. State the difference in effect (or cause) between the control and experimental groups.
4. State the conclusion that you think is warranted by the report.
Research at the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia indicates that children who sleep in a dimly lighted room until age two may be up to five times more likely to develop myopia (nearsightedness) when they grow up.
The researchers asked the parents of children who had been patients at the researchers’ eye clinic to recall the lighting conditions in the children’s bedroom from birth to age two.
Of a total of 172 children who slept in darkness, 10% were nearsighted. Of a total of 232 who slept with a night light, 34% were nearsighted. Of a total of 75 who slept with a lamp on, 55% were nearsighted.
The lead ophthalmologist, Dr. Graham, E. Quinn, said that “just as the body needs to rest, this suggests that the eyes need a period of darkness.” (Points : 30)
Question 6. 6. (TCOs 3, 4, 6) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question. Your three questions are:
1. What position does the author take on the issue at hand?
2. If the author is supporting a position with an argument, restate the argument in your own words.
3. What rhetorical devices does the author employ in this text?
“Another quality that makes [Texas Republican and former Congressman] Tom DeLay an un-Texas politician is that he’s mean. By and large, Texas pols are an agreeable set of less-than-perfect humans and quite often well-intentioned. As Carl Parker of Port Arthur used to observe, if you took all the fools out of the [Congress], it would not be a representative body any longer. The old sense of collegiality was strong, and vindictive behavior punishing pols for partisan reasons was simply not done. But those are Tom DeLay’s specialties, his trademarks. The Hammer is not only genuinely feared in Washington, he is, I’m sorry to say, hated.”
-excerpt from a column by Molly Ivins, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram (Points : 30)
Question 7. 7. (TCOs 7, 8) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer the question in at least one full paragraph, giving specific reasons.
One day, out of frustration, your roommate rips several pages out of his or her textbook, rolls them up, and throws them across the room. You go to pick up the pages. �Leave them,� your roommate insists. �It says something. It�s art.� �It�s garbage,� you reply. Who is right? (Points : 20)
Question 8. 8. (TCOs 6, 7, 9) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question.
Your three questions are as follows.
1. What premises is the author using?
2. What conclusions does the author come to?
3. Are the conclusions justified?
Either one thinks that there is no reason for believing any political doctrine or one sees some reason, however shaky, for the commitment of politics. If a person believes that political doctrines are void of content, that person will be quite content to see political debates go on, but won’t expect anything useful to come from them. If we consider the other case that there is a patriotic justification for a political belief, then what? If the belief is that a specific political position is true, then one ought to be intolerant of all other political beliefs, since each political position must be held to be false relative to the belief one has. And since each political position holds out the promise of reward for any probability of its fixing social problems, however small, that makes it seem rational to choose it over its alternatives. The trouble, of course, is that the people who have other political doctrines may hold theirs just as strongly, making strength of belief itself invalid as a way to determine the rightness of a political position. (Points : 20)
Use the order calculator below and get ordering with essaygeek.com now! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.