FIRST PART

Name
_______________________________________________________________________
1. Are all valid arguments (arguments with no loopholes) necessarily good arguments?
(i.) Yes
(ii.) No
(iii.) Indeterminate (iv.) Maybe yes and maybe no
2. If an argument is not loophole-free (i.e., it is invalid), can its premises be false?
(i.) Yes
(ii.) No
(iii.) Indeterminate
(iv.) No one really knows
3. Good arguments do not need to have good reasoning (good support) and true premises.
(i) True
(ii) False
(iii) It depends on lots of things (iv) Maybe!
4. In your own words, why are gut feelings that a conclusion is true not a reliable indicator of
how well the premises support it?
______________________________________________________________________
5.Construct a spurious duplicate for the following argument:
P: Ted Cruz is caught by paparazzi forcing a young boy onto the floor and brutally
shearing his bleach-blond hair.
____________________________________________________________________
C: The pictures taken by the paparazzi will damage Cruz 2016 enormously.
Loophole: A mouse walks over the damaging picture while it is in the developing tray.
Spurious duplicate:
_____________________________________________________________________________
6. Argument B comes from argument A by making the conclusion of argument B more specific
(i.e., contains more information) than that of argument A and by using the same premises as that
of argument A. Is it possible for argument A to have loopholes which argument B does not have?
(i.) Yes
(ii.) No
(iii.) Indeterminate
(iv.) Unknown
7. If you find many loopholes to an argument, and conjecture there are many more loopholes you
would be able to think of if you had the time to do that, then the support the premises give to the
conclusion is
(i) Perfect10 (ii) the worst possible-0 (iii) Close to 0 (iv) maximal ignorance5
8. If there is information in the structure of the space of situations in which an argument's
premises are true which shows that the premises are true and the conclusion is false in 1/8 of the
space, and the argument's premises are true, is it rational to believe that the negation of the
conclusion is true?

(i.) Yes
classicist!

(ii.) No

(iii.) You stupid classicist!

(iv.) You stupid non-

9. If the conclusion of a valid argument is false, then the premises of that argument musr be
(i) True
(ii) False
(iii) Either true or false
(iv) Neither true nor false
10. Write out the premises and conclusion. Decide whether the argument is valid or invalid. If
invalid, describe one loophole. p. 21 #43
Make sure you write (with identification) the premises and the conclusion.

CRITICAL THINKING

SECOND PART
Name _______________________________________
1.

If x is causally sufficient for y, then it is necessary that y is

___________________________________________________ for x.

2. Construct an evil twin for the following valid argument form:

P1: If Not-Not-F then (Z or H)
P2: Not-Not-F
C: Z or H

3. Damning evidence must be known by the arguer to whose argument it applies.

(i.) TRUE
(ii.) FALSE
(iii.) Spurious!
(iv) unknowable
4. 2 + 2 = 5 is _____________________________

for getting an F in this course.

5. Given a proof by contradiction (PBC) whose support is .4 and whose original premises
are false, the negation of the conclusion (i.) must be true (ii.) cannot be true (iii.) is
perverse (iv.) can't be evaluated for truth.
6. If x is a node in a hierarchically organized tree structure, then it is
________________________________ for all nodes in the tree structure lower than it.
7. P1: 8% of all Rutgers/Newark students will get drunk this weekend. P2: Booze-Head
is a Rutgers/Newark student. What can be inductively concluded about Booze-Head from
these premises?
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
8. (i.) Every (ii.) Not every
(iii.) No
following argument form is valid:
P1: If not-not-q then (not-p or not-q)
P2: Not-(Not-p or not-q)

substitution instance of the

C: Not-not-q
9. When you infer "x is causally sufficient for y" from "x is sufficient for y" without
additional information, you have committed the
_____________________________________________________________________.
10. (i.) Every (ii.) Not every
(iii.) No
following argument form is invalid:

substitution instance of the

P1: If not-p then not-q

P2: not-q
C: not-p
11. Attending logic class and listening to Mozarts music is
________________________________________________

for squaring the circle.

12. The reason why a PBC with support 0 is worthless is that

____________________________________ in which the augmented premise set is true,
but you do not know which one it is.
13. When we conjecture x causes y and perform an experiment to prove this is so, how do
we rule out the case that y causes x AND x and y occur at the same time?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
14. If you encounter a substitution instance of Modus Tollens in which the second
premise is clearly true, is it rational for you to believe the conclusion?
(i) YES

(ii) NO

(iii) MAYBE

(iv) Indeterminate

15. Suppose that you conduct a poll for a Presidential Election (in the United States) by
going to various medical care facilities to interview people both working there and who
are there for medical treatments. Suppose you have a true random sample of all medical
care facilities in the United States. Is your poll subject to the fallacy of bias?
(i) YES

(ii) NO

Name ___________________________________________________________

1. Name the fallacy: "He says you should invest your money in technology stocks. But,
dont forget, his breath is poison to your nose."
_________________________________________________________________

2. Name the fallacy: "We have no evidence that the FBI monitoring of phone
conversations has led to any curtailment in the democratic life of the nation. We can only
conclude that there has been no curtailment in the democratic life of the nation."
___________________________________________________________________________

3. Name the fallacy: "Eating raw liver is better than nothing. Nothing is better than this
course. Therefore, eating raw liver is better than this course."
_______________________________________________________

4. "Caveman beer is just so lacking in taste and thats why you must buy Drunkman
beer. (Name the fallacy)

______________________________________________________________________________
___

5. "Any city that allows you to keep a loaded gun in your office but not an ashtray, is one
with its priorities seriously out of whack." Graydon Carter, editor of Vanity Fair, after
receiving a summons for having ashtrays in his Times Square office (New York Times,
12/2/03) (Name the fallacy)
_______________________________________________________________________

6. "The last three exams were pretty easy and straightforward, so it's a safe bet that
tomorrows exam will also be easy and straightforward." (Name the fallacy)

____________________________________________________________________________

7. Domino arguments are

(ii.) sometimes

(i.) always

(iii.) never

valid.

8. For countless generations the Sleepylog's have been known for their extraordinarily
flamboyant behavior. When Jane Sleepylog (who is 90 years old) shows up, expect to see
her doing a dozen handstands, one right after the other. (Name the fallacy)
__________________________________________________________

9. "Wherever you go, there you are. It follows that no one ever gets lost."
(Name the fallacy)
______________________________________________________________________________
__

10. They say of her You the man!; and so, what she says, goes!* (Name the fallacy)
_____________________________________________________________________
*goes = is the truth