Category: Philosophy

Determine whether the following passage is an argument or non-argument. If it’s an argument, explain what makes it an argument. If it’s not an argument, identify which kind (explanation, conditional statement, unsupported assertion) and explain why it’s not an argument by blending details and concepts.

1. Determine whether the following passage is an argument or non-argument. If it’s an argument, explain what makes it an argument. If it’s not an argument, identify which kind (explanation, conditional statement, unsupported assertion) and explain why it’s not an argument by blending details and concepts. Answer in complete sentences. [3 marks]

2. Determine whether the following passage is an argument or non-argument. If it’s an argument, explain what makes it an argument. If it’s not an argument, identify which kind (explanation, conditional statement, unsupported assertion) and explain why it’s not an argument by blending details and concepts. Answer in complete sentences. [3 marks]

3. Determine whether the following passage is an argument or non-argument. If it’s an argument, explain what makes it an argument. If it’s not an argument, identify which kind (explanation, conditional statement, unsupported assertion) and explain why it’s not an argument by blending details and concepts. Answer in complete sentences. [3 marks]

4. Determine whether the following passage is an argument or non-argument. If it’s an argument, explain what makes it an argument. If it’s not an argument, identify which kind (explanation, conditional statement, unsupported assertion) and explain why it’s not an argument by blending details and concepts. Answer in complete sentences. [3 marks]

5. Determine whether the following passage is an argument or non-argument. If it’s an argument, explain what makes it an argument. If it’s not an argument, identify which kind (explanation, conditional statement, unsupported assertion) and explain why it’s not an argument by blending details and concepts. Answer in complete sentences. [3 marks]
Racial profiling is not an issue for white people, but it is a serious issue for visible minorities.

6. For the following deductive argument, indicate whether it is valid or invalid. Explain WHY it’s valid/invalid – by blending concepts of deductive logic (e.g. deductive pattern if applicable) and details from the passage. Answer in complete sentences. [3 marks]

7. For the following deductive argument, indicate whether it is valid or invalid. Explain WHY it’s valid/invalid – by blending concepts (e.g. deductive pattern if applicable) and details from the passage. Answer in complete sentences. [3 marks]
Simba is a lion. Necessarily, therefore, Simba must have four legs.

8. For the following deductive argument, indicate whether it is valid or invalid. Explain WHY it’s valid/invalid – by blending concepts (e.g. deductive pattern if applicable) and details from the passage. Answer in complete sentences. [3 marks]

10. Which is the missing premise of the following chain argument?

P1: If we’re going to leave, we’re leaving before noon.
P2: ?
—————————–

13. We’re not in Berlin, given that if we are in Berlin, then we are in Germany, and we are not in Germany.
The above argument displays which pattern?

14. Either the Romulans will attack the station and severely weaken our defenses in this sector, or the Klingons will join us and repel the attack. But the Klingons will not help us out. Hence, the Romulans will attack the station and severely weaken our defenses in this sector.

17. All cats are purple. And everything that is purple is a person. Therefore, all cats are people.

valid or invalid _________________________
sound or unsound ______________________

18. Determine whether the following argument is sound or unsound. Explain your answer by blending concepts and details from the passage. [2 marks each]

19. Determine whether the following argument is sound or unsound. Explain your answer by blending concepts and details from the passage. [2 marks each]

 Evaluate an argument of your own choice, in the areas of health sciences or psychology.Evaluate one of the following causal arguments for strength and cogency, according to the necessary conditions specified in Chapter 7.

Discussion

Evaluate one of the following causal arguments for strength and cogency, according to the necessary conditions specified in Chapter 7:

Correlation
Temporal Precedence
Absence of third variables and spurious factors

Evaluate an argument of your own choice, in the areas of health sciences or psychology.

Yahaya Hassan, “Likely cause of Alzheimer’s identified in new study,” Medical News Today, Sep 28, 2021, https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/likely-cause-of-alzheimers-identified-in-new-study , accessed Oct. 18, 2021

Caron Christina, “Spanking is Ineffective and Harmful to Children, Pediatrician’s Group Says,” The New York Times, Nov 5, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/health/spanking-harmful-study-pediatricians.html , accessed Oct 18, 2021

Both articles contains links to related studies. It would be very helpful to take a closer look at one or more of those.

Another currently discussed topic is the harmful effect of Instagram on adolescents. Find a recent scientific study and evaluate its causal argument.

What is the best way for Locke to address this tension between the importance and the rarity of explicit consent? (Should he conclude, for instance, that there are almost no actual members of political societies? Or is there a way for him to avoid that conclusion?

Consent

Locke on explicit and tacit consent. In section 122 of Locke’s Second Treatise, Locke seems to say that a person can only be a member of a political society if that person explicitly consents to be governed by its laws.

But Locke also seems sensitive to the fact that very few people actually give explicit consent to be governed; that is one possible reason for his extensive discussions of tacit consent.

What is the best way for Locke to address this tension between the importance and the rarity of explicit consent? (Should he conclude, for instance, that there are almost no actual members of political societies? Or is there a way for him to avoid that conclusion?)

What is the best way for Locke to address this tension between the importance and the rarity of explicit consent? (Should he conclude, for instance, that there are almost no actual members of political societies? Or is there a way for him to avoid that conclusion?

Locke on explicit and tacit consent

In section 122 of Locke’s Second Treatise, Locke seems to say that a person can only be a member of a political society if that person explicitly consents to be governed by its laws.

But Locke also seems sensitive to the fact that very few people actually give explicit consent to be governed; that is one possible reason for his extensive discussions of tacit consent.

What is the best way for Locke to address this tension between the importance and the rarity of explicit consent? (Should he conclude, for instance, that there are almost no actual members of political societies? Or is there a way for him to avoid that conclusion?)

What exactly does it mean to say that humans are ‘cognitively closed’ to some parts of the world, or that some problems will forever remain ‘mysteries’?

The end of science? On human cognitive limitations
and how to overcome them

What, if any, are the limits of human understanding?

What exactly does it mean to say that humans
are ‘cognitively closed’ to some parts of the world, or that some problems will
forever remain ‘mysteries’?

Are there any limits to what human inquiry might achieve, and if so, what parts of reality must
forever lie beyond our ken?

How should we resolve this conflict?Analyze different forms and modalities of cognitive limitation

What exactly does it mean to be cognitively “closed” or “limited”?

Determine how law enforcement officers evaluate how law enforcement officers judge the credibility of sexual assault victims during investigations and that’s why this research study is necessary.

Law Enforcement Officers Decision Making on Sexual Assault Victims’ Credibility Add In

incorporate the following information to “Law Enforcement Officers Decision-Making on Sexual Assault Victims’ Credibility” section:

Examine studies closely related to this one (at least two or three)

Explain what type of study was examined… (i.e. qualitative or quantitative)

Explain why the author wanted to explore the research

Explain what the research findings were.

Do 3-4 paragraphs to say that the authors of the study did X,Y, Z (Possibly compare and contrast)

End with the authors did not determine how law enforcement officers evaluate how law enforcement officers judge the credibility of sexual assault victims during investigations and that’s why this research study is necessary.

What does the argument against believing in God without sufficient evidence look like? Is it plausible that God would look kindly on atheists and agnostics to because they refuse to believe without evidence? After all, aren’t they simply using God’s gift of reason to arrive at their decision?

Is it morally permissible to believe in God just because it is to your practical advantage to believe? Why or why not? Use the material in Vaughn’s book to help you explain how Pascal argues for belief in God. Explain the strengths and weaknesses that other thinkers have identified in his reasoning.

What does the argument against believing in God without sufficient evidence look like? Is it plausible that God would look kindly on atheists and agnostics to because they refuse to believe without evidence? After all, aren’t they simply using God’s gift of reason to arrive at their decision?

The text for this class is:
Title: Philosophy Here and Now: Powerful Ideas in Everyday Life
Edition: Third (3rd)