Key To All Exercises

Exercise Answers and Teaching Tips
Chapter 1: Introduction to Critical Thinking
Students enjoy the exercises in Chapter 1. Most are Socratic exercises, designed to ease
students into the course and encourage self-reflection in dialogue with others.
Instructors probably won't want to do all the exercises in this chapter: We
generally do about half. Exercise 1.1.1 works well as an icebreaker. Students always
enjoy Exercises 1.2 and 1.3, and Exercises 1.6.I and 1.6.III work well for instructors who
stress writing.
Exercise 1.1
I.
As noted above, this exercise works well as an icebreaker. We use it mainly to highlight
the difference between lower-order thinking and higher-order thinking.
II.
Having grown up on Jerry Springer and Ricki Lake, today's students are surprisingly
frank about their practical and intellectual inconsistencies. If discussion does falter, try
discussing the hypocrisies of public figures.
Exercise 1.2
Students enjoy this simple test, which takes only a few minutes to take and self-grade.
Students are amazed by how poorly they do. (Most only get two or three answers
correct.) This brings home to them in a way no lecture could their own proneness to
intellectual overconfidence.
Exercise 1.3
Students have fun with this exercise, and it is very effective in making clear to them how
strongly our thinking is influenced by unconscious assumptions and stereotypes. Students
invariably assume, for example, that the Captain is a man, that Dr. Brown is a man, that
Dr. Brown is a medical doctor, that Dr. Brown and Marie Brown are related as either
husband and wife or as father and daughterdespite the fact there is no textual evidence
to support any of these assumptions. Allow at least 20-30 minutes for this exercise.
2
Exercise 1.4.
Below are some crib notes we use in our own classes when teaching this exercise.
Case 1
Key Facts:
You are a member of Culture C and a moral relativist.

You are studying cultures A and B.
A is a pacifist culture; B is a militaristic and slaveholding culture.
B invades A.
Discussion questions:
1. What can you consistently believe with regard to Culture A?
Answer: You must believe that it is right for Culture A to be a totally pacifist culture, and
hence that it is right for Culture A to permit themselves to be conquered and enslaved by
Culture B. (Assuming that this belief is consistent with what you must believe as a
member of Culture C.)
2. What can you consistently believe with regard to Culture B?
Answer: You must believe that it is right for Culture B to be a militaristic and
slaveholding culture, and hence that it is right for Culture B to conquer and enslave
Culture A. (Assuming that this belief is consistent with what you must believe as a
member of Culture C.)
3. What can you consistently do with regard to Culture A?
Answer: Since both Culture A and Culture B are doing what they consider to be morally
right, you cannot do anything to interfere with the invasion. (Assuming that your
noninterference is permitted by the values of Culture C.)
4. What can you consistently do with regard to Culture B?
Answer: You cannot do anything to interfere with Culture Bs conquest of Culture A.

(Assuming that your noninterference is permitted by the values of Culture C.)
Main Lesson of Case 1:
Moral relativism may commit us to certain beliefs or practices that, intuitively, seem to us
to be terribly wrong. It makes it impossible for us to criticize the values and practices of
other cultures that may seem to us to be clearly wrong or misguided.
3
Case 2
Key Facts:
You are a member of Culture B and a moral relativist.

A is a pacifist culture; B is a militaristic and slaveholding culture.
Culture B believes that it is wrong for Culture A to practice pacifism.
Culture B invades Culture A, and seeks to enslave them and force many of them
to participate in gladiatorial bouts.
1. Is there any logical difficulty with being a relativist and also belonging to Culture
B?
Answer: Yes. As a moral relativist you must believe that it is right for Culture A to
practice pacifism (since this is what Culture A believes is right). But as a member of
Culture B you must believe that it is wrong for Culture A to practice pacifism (since this
is what Culture B believes).
2. What can you consistently believe with regard to Culture A?
Answer: As explained above, you are committed to inconsistent beliefs with regard to
Culture A. You must believe that it is right for Culture A to practice pacifism and that it is
wrong for Culture A to practice pacifism.
3. What can you consistently believe with regard to Culture B?
Answer: You must believe that it is right for Culture B to subjugate and enslave Culture
A. (Instructors might wish to note that, strictly speaking, inconsistent beliefs imply any
conclusion.)
4. What can you consistently do with regard to Culture A?
Answer: Since both Culture A and Culture B are doing what they consider to be right,
you, as a member of Culture B, must support the invasionand indeed participate in it if
required to do so.
5. What can you consistently do with regard to Culture B?
Answer: You must support and possibly participate in the invasion and subjugation.
4
Main Lessons of Case 2:
1. Moral relativism may commit us to certain beliefs or practices that, intuitively,

seem to us to be terribly wrong.
2. Moral relativism can easily lapse into inconsistency. One way this can happen is
when a relativist is a member of a society that holds beliefs that conflict with
moral relativism (as Culture B does in this scenario). Another way inconsistency
can occur is when a relativist belongs to a culture that holds inconsistent moral
beliefs. A third way in which relativism can lead to inconsistency is explored in
Case 3.
Case 3
Key Facts:
You are a member of Culture B, a moral relativist, and a member of sub-culture

Beta.
Culture A is a totally pacifist culture.
Culture B consists of two sub-cultures: the Alphas, a ruling majority group, and
the Betas, an oppressed minority group with its own distinctive beliefs and
practices.
The Alphas believe that it is morally right to annually sacrifice a young child; the
Betas believe strongly that child sacrifice is wrong.
The Alphas also believe that it is wrong that Culture A does not practice child
sacrifice, and that it is right for them to impose this belief on Culture A.
Culture B invades Culture A, and begins its program of indoctrination.
1. Is it possible for an individual to belong to more than one culture at the same
time? If so, does this impose any logical difficulty for the moral relativist?
Answer: Arguably, yes. The Amish, for example, plausibly belong to two cultures: the
larger American culture and their own distinctive sub-culture. If an individual belongs to
different cultures, and the cultures hold mutually inconsistent moral beliefs, then moral
relativism implies inconsistent moral duties.
2. Is there any logical difficulty in being a relativist and belonging to Culture B?
Answer: Yes, for the same reason stated in Case 2. You must believe both that Culture A
is right not to practice child sacrifice and that Culture A is wrong not to practice child
sacrifice.
5
3. What can you consistently believe with regard to Culture A and Culture B?
Answer: You seem to be committed to holding inconsistent beliefs: that child sacrifice is
both right and wrong for Culture B, and that child sacrifice is both right and wrong for
Culture A.
4. What can you consistently do with regard to Culture A and Culture B?
Answer: You would have inconsistent duties--for example, both to support and not to
support child sacrifice.
5. If someday the Betas become the majority sub-culture in Culture B, and

consequently most members of Culture B no longer believe in child sacrifice, can
this be described as "moral progress" from the standpoint of moral relativism?
Answer: No. According to moral relativism, what is morally right for a society is
whatever that society believes is right at a particular time. Thus, according to relativism,
it is not the case, for example, that contemporary Americans' attitudes toward slavery are
"truer" or "more enlightened" than those of most 18th century Americans. Both views are
equally true for the people at those times.
Exercise 1.5
Students may be confused at first about how some of these critical thinking hindrances
differ from one another. Encourage them to begin with definitions of the hindrances and
then to work systematically through them, providing examples of each.
Exercise 1.6
I.
Students enjoy this exercise in self-examination, and it provides a good opportunity early
in the course for instructors to offer rapport-building feedback.
II.
The following definitions are offered on the Center for Critical Thinking Web site
(http://www.criticalthinking.org):
Intellectual humility: Having a consciousness of the limits of one's knowledge,

including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one's native egocentrism is likely to
function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations.
6
Intellectual courage: Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address
ideas, beliefs or viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to
which we have not given a serious hearing.
Fair-mindedness: Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike,

without reference to one's own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested
interests of one's friends, community or nation.
Intellectual perseverance: Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual

insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence
to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of others; a sense of the need to
struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to
achieve deeper understanding or insight.
The Web site also offers definitions of three additional intellectual traits: intellectual
empathy, intellectual integrity, and faith in reason.
Here are two dictionary definitions of open-mindedness: "Having or showing

receptiveness to new and different ideas or the opinions of others." (Source: The
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd ed.) "Willingness to listen to
other people and consider new ideas, suggestions and opinions." (Source: Cambridge
International Dictionary of English.)
III.
Unfortunately, many students know very little about such intellectually courageous
figures as Socrates, Luther, St. Thomas More, Spinoza, or Susan B. Anthony. If time
permits, you might ask students to read Plato's Apology and perhaps the Crito or Phaedo
as well. This will take a few class periods but the critical-thinking lessons they teach are
important.
Chapter 2: Recognizing Arguments
Exercise 2.1
I.
1. Statement
2. Nonstatement (question)
3. Statement
4. Nonstatement (suggestion)
5. Statement
7
6. Nonstatement (suggestion or exhortation)

7. Statement (This is a brief and emphatic way of saying, "This is great.")
8. Nonstatement (command)
9. Nonstatement (order or request)
10. Statement (You might be lying.)
11. Statement (rhetorical question)
12. Nonstatement (exclamation)
13. Nonstatement (request)
15. Nonstatement (question)
16. Statement (This is an emphatic way of saying, "This is a crock.")
17. Nonstatement (This could be an ought imperative in some contexts, but more likely it
is a request, suggestion, or order.)
18. Statement
19. Nonstatement ("Please" indicates that this is a request)
20. Nonstatement (petition)
21. Nonstatement (suggestion or proposal)
22. Statement (Spanish for "My house is your house.")
25. Nonstatement (exclamation)
II.
1. Yes
2. No (command)
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. No (suggestion)
6. No
7. Yes
8. Yes
9. Yes
10. Yes
11. No
12. Yes
13. Yes
14. No
15. Yes
Exercise 2.2
I.
1. Premise: Light takes time to reach our eyes.

8
Conclusion: All that we see really existed in the past.
2. Premise 1: Life changes when you least expect it to.

Premise 2: The future is uncertain.
Conclusion: Seize this day, seize this moment, and make the most of it.
3. Premise: A good name shall continue with thee, more than a thousand
treasures precious and great.
Conclusion: Take care of a good name.
4. Premise: Faith means believing a proposition when there is no good reason for
believing it.
Conclusion: Faith is a vice.
5. Premise: If you are not very careful about lying, you are nearly sure to get caught.
Conclusion: You want to be very careful about lying.
6. Premise: There is no definitive way to prove any one set of religious beliefs to the
exclusion of all others.
Conclusion: Religious freedom is a human right.
7. Premise: Science is based on experiment, on a willingness to challenge old

dogma, on an openness to see the universe as it really is.
Conclusion: Science sometimes requires courage--at the very least the courage to
question the conventional wisdom.
8. Premise 1: You may not be able to hear warning sirens from emergency vehicles.
Premise 2: Hearing damage from loud noise is almost undetectable until it's too
late.
Conclusion: Do not play your sound system loudly.
9. Premise 1: Without symbols, no intellectual advance is possible.

Premise 2: With symbols, there is no limit set to intellectual development except
inherent stupidity.
Conclusion: The invention or discovery of symbols is doubtless by far the single
greatest event in the history of man.
10. Premise: On average, the lowest animal is a lot nicer and kinder than most of the
human beings that inhabit the earth.
Conclusion: Animals have souls.
11. Premise: The more stupid a member of Parliament is, the more stupid his
constituents were to elect him.
Conclusion: Democracy has at least one merit, namely, that a member of
Parliament cannot be stupider than his constituents.
9
12. Premise: When senility hit you, you won't know it.
Conclusion: Don't worry about senility.
13. Premise: Oil isn't helping anyone when it sits in the ground.
Conclusion: There's nothing wrong with burning crude [oil] like crazy, so long as
there's a plan for energy alternatives when the cheap oil runs out.
14. Premise: Everyone recalls the famous incident at Sybil Seretsky's when her
goldfish sang "I Got Rhythm"--a favorite tune of her deceased
nephew.
Conclusion: There is no doubt that certain events recorded at seances are
genuine.
15. Premise: We need quality highways to handle the sharp increase in the number of
Mercedes automobiles purchased by lawyers enriched by the
tobacco settlement.
Conclusion: It's good that so far states are spending more than 90 percent of the
tobacco settlement money on programs unrelated to smoking, such
as building highways.
16. Premise: If we encourage each other to blame God for injustice, we are giving the
evil or dark side a victory by keeping God's precious childrenthat's all of
usaway from His loving arms.
Conclusion: Although it's part of human nature to be angry at God when bad
things happen, there' s no point in doing so.
17. Premise 1: In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of
God.
Premise 2: God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time.
Conclusion: Both parties in great contests may be, and one must be, wrong.
18. Premise 1: The Alaska bears are a distinct species.

Premise 2: Relegating grizzlies to Alaska is like relegating happiness to heaven--
one may never get to heaven or Alaska.
Conclusion: It is not good enough for me if grizzlies survive only in Canada and
Alaska.
19. Premise 1: More than 99 percent of the creatures that have ever lived have died
without progeny.
Premise 2: Not a single one of your ancestors falls into this group.
Conclusion: You are very lucky to be alive.
20. Premise: You put a pen in there, you roll over in the middle of the night, you
kill yourself.
Conclusion: You don't need a breast pocket on your pajamas.
10
II.
1. Premise 1: Man knows that he is dying.

Premise 2: Of its victory the universe knows nothing.
Conclusion: When the universe has crushed him man will still be nobler than that
which kills him.
2. Premise 1: Rights are either God-given or evolve out of the democratic process.
Premise 2: Most rights are based on the ability of people to agree on a social
contract, the ability to make and keep agreements.
Premise 3: Animals cannot possibly reach such an agreement with other creatures.
Premise 4: Animals cannot respect anyone else's rights.
Conclusion: Animals cannot be said to have rights.
3. Premise 1: I need a man.

Premise 2: My heart is set on you.
Conclusion: Youd better shape up.
4. Premise 1: Moral responsibility presupposes free-will.

Premise 2: This freedom is not compatible with universal causal determinism.
Premise 3: Universal causal determinism appears to be the case.
Conclusion: Contrary to what most people believe, human beings are not morally
responsible.
5. Premise 1: Our faith comes in moments.

Premise 2: Our vice is habitual.
Premise 3: There is a depth in those brief moments which constrains us to ascribe
more reality to them than to all other experiences.
Conclusion: The argument which is always forthcoming to silence those who
conceive extraordinary hopes of man, namely the appeal to
experience, is forever invalid and vain.
6. Premise 1: Travel articles appear in publications that sell large, expensive

advertisements to tourism-related industries.
Premise 2: These industries do not wish to see articles with headlines like
"Uruguay: Don't Bother."
Premise 3: (subconclusion): No matter what kind of leech-infested, plumbing free
destination travel writers are writing about, they always stress the
positive.
Conclusion: Never trust anything you read in travel articles.
7. Premise 1: If you are not speeding, you don't have to worry about speed traps.
Premise 2: Speed traps could save your life if some other speeder is caught.
Conclusion: No one in his right mind can criticize the state police for speed traps.
11
8. Premise 1: Philosophy is dangerous whenever it is taken seriously.

Premise 2: So is life.
Premise 3: Safety is not an option.
Conclusion: Our choices are not between risk and security, but between a life
lived consciously, fully, humanly in the most complete sense and a
life that just happens.
9. Premise: Our nation protests, encourages, and even intervenes in the affairs of
other nations on the basis of its relations to corporations.
Conclusion: We cannot dissociate ourselves from the plight of people in those
countries.
10. Premise: He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God
whom he hath not seen.
Conclusion: If a man say, "I love God" and hateth his brother, he is a liar.
11. Premise 1: Each of us has an intellectual dimension to his existence.

Premise 2: We need ideas as much as we need food, air, or water.
Premise 3: Ideas nourish the mind as the latter provide for the body.
Conclusion: We need good ideas as much as we need good food, good air, and
good water.
12. Premise 1: The only criterion for distinguishing right from wrong is the moral
system of the society in which the act occurs.
Premise 2 (subconclusion): The only ethical standard for judging an action is the
moral system of the society in which the act occurs.
Conclusion: What is right in one place may be wrong in another.
13. Premise: If you don't accept reality the way it occurs--namely, as highly imperfect
and filled with most fallible human beingsyou will experience
continual anxiety and desperate disappointments.
Conclusion: Whether you like it or not, you'd better accept reality the way it
occurs: as highly imperfect and filled with most fallible human
beings.
14. Premise 1: The more vivid our sense of the approach of death, the more we relish
the small things in life.
Premise 2 (subconclusion): Death is necessary for our appreciation of life.
Premise 3: Death is necessary for the continued march of evolutionary
improvement, an ongoing process leading to more valuable states of good,
to take place on earth.
Conclusion: We should be emotionally reconciled to the fact of death, rather than
fearing it.
12
15. Premise: The hit rock songs of 1974 included "Kung Fu Fighting," "Seasons in
the Sun," "Billy Don't Be a Hero," "The Night Chicago Died" and
"(You're) Having My Baby."
Conclusion: It is a scientific fact that 1974 was the worst year in world history for
rock music.
16. Premise 1: Those who develop the first-thing-in-the-morning routine tend to be

more consistent in their training.
Premise 2: Morning runs avoid the heat and peak air pollution.
Premise 3: You can enjoy your runs without carrying along all the stress that
builds up during the day.
Premise 4: Early-morning runs save time by combining your morning and postrun
shower.
Conclusion: Getting in your run early certainly has its advantages.
17. Premise 1: You go to Duke and it has everything you dream about in college
basketball.
Premise 2: Guys play hard.
Premise 3: They go to class.
Premise 4: They do things the right way.
Premise 5: They have discipline.
Premise 6: They go out and win.
Premise 7: The crowd is behind them.
Conclusion: There is nothing not to like about Duke University mens basketball
program.
18. Premise 1: College professors dont know how to live any better than the rest of
us.
Conclusion: The art of how to live cant be taught in college.
19. Premise 1: Youll begin to eat food in season, when they are at the peak of their
nutritional value and flavor.
Premise 2: You wont find anything processed or microwavable.
Premise 3 (subconclusion): Youll cook.
Premise 4: Youll be supporting the farmers in your community.
Premise 5: Youll be helping defend the countryside from sprawl.
Premise 6: Youll be saving oil by eating food produced nearby.
Premise 7: Youll be teaching your children that a carrot is a root, not a machine-
lathed orange bullet that comes in a plastic bag.
Conclusion; Shop at the farmers market.
20. Premise 1: When you understand other positions and points of view, you often
learn something new and expand your horizons.
Premise 2: When the person you are talking to feels listened to, he or she will
appreciate and respect you far more than when you habitually jump in
with your own position.
13
Premise 3: A side benefit is that the person you are speaking to may even listen to
your point of view.
Conclusion: The next time you find yourself in an argument, rather than defend
your position, see if you can see the other point of view first.
Exercise 2.3
Students with less developed literacy skills often find it very difficult to distinguish
arguments from explanations. This exercise allows students to reflect on a large number
of generally straightforward examples in a format that encourages active learning. It is
also a good source of student-generated examples for quizzes and exams.
Exercise 2.4
I.
1. Nonargument (explanation)
2. Argument
4. Nonargument (conditional statement)
6. Argument
7. Nonargument (report of an argument)
8. Nonargument (illustration)
11. Argument
13. Nonargument (report of argument). (The writer is reporting, not endorsing,
Gladstone's argument.)
15. Nonargument (unsupported assertion)
16. Nonargument (report of an explanation)
18. Argument
19. Nonargument (unsupported assertion). (Notice that the word "because" does not
function as a premise indicator in either sentence of this passage.)
24. Argument
26. Argument
14

II.
1. Explanation
2. Argument
3. Explanation
4. Argument
5. Explanation
6. Explanation
7. Explanation
8. Explanation
9. Explanation
10. Explanation
11. Argument
12. Explanation
13. Explanation
14. Explanation
15. Argument
16. Explanation
17. Argument
18. Explanation
19. Explanation
20. Explanation
Chapter 3: Basic Logical Concepts
Exercise 3.1
I.
1. Moriarty
2. Adler, with the revolver
3. Windibank, with the rope, on the downs

15
II.
1. Mike: Grape juice

Amy: Pepsi
Brian: Diet Coke
Lisa: Iced tea
Bill: 7-Up
2. China and Japan are out because Seth does not want to go to Asia. Australia is out
because Maria does not want to go to any country south of the equator. Canada is out
because Antoine wants to study in Europe or Australia. England is out because JoBeth is
willing to go anywhere except England. Therefore, by a process of elimination, the
answer is Germany.
3. Buck: Soda
Jennifer: Pretzels
Li: Dip
Ursula: Chips
Tyler: Ice cream
Exercise 3.2
1. Modus tollens
2. Affirming the consequent
3. Modus ponens
4. Chain argument
5. Denying the antecedent
6. Modus ponens
7. Denying the antecedent
9. Chain argument
Exercise 3.3
1. Deductive (Argument based on mathematics; also, the conclusion follows necessarily

from the premises.)
16
2. Inductive (Argument from authority; also, the conclusion follows only probably from
the premises; also, "its reasonable to believe that is an induction indicator
phrase.)
3. Inductive (Statistical argument; also, the conclusion follows only probably from the
premises; also, probably is an induction indicator word.)
4. Deductive (Argument by elimination; also, the conclusion follows necessarily from

the premises.)
5. Deductive. (The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises; also, obviously is
a deduction indicator word.)
6. Inductive (Causal argument; also, the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the
premises.)
7. Inductive (Given that signs can be wrong, the conclusion follows only probably from
the premises.)
8. Deductive (Argument by definition; also, the conclusion follows necessarily from the
premises.)
9. Deductive (Categorical syllogism; also, the conclusion follows necessarily from the
premises.)
10. Inductive (Argument from authority; also, a prediction; also, probably is an

induction indicator word; also, the conclusion does not follow necessarily from
the premises.)
11. Deductive (Hypothetical syllogism; note, however, that the conclusion does not
follow necessarily from the premises.)
12. Deductive (The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.)
13. Inductive (The principle of charity dictates that the argument be regarded as
inductive, because the conclusion follows at best probably from the premises.)
14. Inductive (Causal argument; also, the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the
premises.)
15. Inductive (Inductive generalization; also, probably is an induction indicator word;

also, the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises.)
16. Inductive (Argument from authority; also, the conclusion does not follow necessarily
from the premises.)
17
17. Deductive (Hypothetical syllogism; note, however, that the conclusion does not
follow necessarily from the premises.)
18. Inductive (Argument from analogy; also, the conclusion does not follow necessarily
from the premises.)
19. Inductive. (The principle of charity dictates that the argument be regarded as
inductive, because the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises.)
20. Deductive (Argument by definition; also, the conclusion follows necessarily from the
premises; also, it must be the case that is a deduction indicator phrase.)
21. Deductive. (The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.)
22. Deductive (Argument by elimination; also, the conclusion follows necessarily from
the premises.)
23. Inductive (Argument from authority; also, the conclusion follows only probably from
the premises.)
24. Inductive (Predictive argument; also, the conclusion follows only probably from the
premises.)
25. Deductive (Argument based on mathematics; also, conclusion follows necessarily

from the premises; also, "it necessarily follows" is a deduction indicator phrase.)
Exercise 3.4
1. Beta.
2. Alpha.
3. Delta is a beta.
4. Delta is not an alpha.
5. Delta is not a beta.
6. Delta is not an alpha.
7. If Delta is an alpha, then Delta is a theta.
8. Delta is a beta.
9. Either Delta is a theta or Delta is a sigma.
10. Some alphas are thetas (or: Some thetas are alphas).
Exercise 3.5
I.
1. Valid
18
2. Valid
3. Invalid (affirming the consequent)
4. Invalid (denying the antecedent)
5. Invalid
6. Invalid (Not all lions have four legs.)
7. Valid
8. Valid
9. Invalid
10. Invalid
II.
1. Sound
2. Unsound (The first premise is false.)
3. Sound
4. Unsound (invalid argument: affirming the consequent)
5. Sound
6. Sound
7. Unsound (invalid argument: denying the antecedent)
8. Unsound (The argument is invalid.)
9. Unsound (The argument is invalid.)
10. Unsound (false premise)
III.
1. Cogent
2. Uncogent (Although cigarette smoking significantly increases one's risk of dying
from lung cancer, most heavy smokers do not die from lung cancer.)
3. Uncogent (false premise)
4. Uncogent (The analogy is a bad one, and the second premise is false.)
5. Cogent
6. Uncogent (The conclusion does not follow probably from the premises.)
7. Cogent
8. Uncogent (The first premise is false.)
9. Cogent.
10. Uncogent (The conclusion does not follow probably from the premises.)
IV.
1. Deductive, valid
2. Deductive, valid
3. Inductive, strong
4. Inductive, weak
19
6. Deductive, invalid (three socks would suffice)
8. Deductive, invalid
9. Deductive, valid
10. Inductive, weak
13. Inductive, weak
14. Deductive, valid
16. Inductive, weak
18. Inductive, weak
20
Chapter 4: Language
Exercise 4.1
I.
1. Vague and overgeneral.

2. Overgeneral.
3. Overgeneral.
4. Overgeneral.
7. Overgeneral.
9. Overgeneral.
II.
Its important in this exercise that students are able to tell how they might clear up the
confusion in ambiguous sentences. In some cases, however (numbers 2 and 16, for
example), the ambiguity is intended. In the case of vagueness, students should be able to
say which sentences make deliberate and necessary use of vague language.
1. Vague and overgeneral (not to mention ungrammatical). Terms such as

verbal assaults and derogatory comments are highly vague. Much of
the language is also overgeneral (e.g., any language or behavior that
challenges another person or puts them in a state of fear or anxiety
apparently counts as harassment).
2. Ambiguous because of unclear pronoun references. It could refer to

Sheridans having called the honorable member a liar or to the honorable
members being a liar.
3. Ambiguous. Should the security officer have experience as a shoplifter or

as someone who has enforced laws against shoplifting?
4. Unhelpfully vague. How likely is it to rain? 5 percent? 95 percent?
5. Ambiguous. Who, precisely, is on drugs?
6. Ambiguous. With relish could refer to the condiment made of chopped

pickles, or it could describe the enjoyment with which the cheesecake was
eaten.
21
7. Ambiguous. Whose bottom is enormous, Ellens or the ships? (If you have
time, you might use this comical sentence to remind students about the
confusion caused by dangling modifiers.)
8. Overgeneral. Of course the minister was against sin, but Coolidge, very
cleverly, doesnt provide specifics.
9. Ambiguous. Does this mean (a) that only riders carrying dogs may ride the
elevator or (b) that riders accompanied by dogs must carry those dogs?
10. Ambiguous. Who is hot, Bob or Devlin? And "hot " in what sense?
11. Ambiguous.
12. Ambiguous. Without parentheses it is impossible to know how to proceed

in solving this equation. Is it (3 + 5) x 3 = 24? Or is it 3 + (5 x 3) = 18?
13. Ambiguous.
14. Ambiguous. The verb bear can mean carry, produce, or tolerate.
15. Ambiguous.
16. Brilliantly ambiguous. The phrase lose no time in reading it can be read
to mean that Disraeli would immediately read the manuscript or refuse to
waste his time.
17. Vague and overgeneral. The words small and brown have fuzzy meanings
(How small? What shade of brown?). And the phrase small brown dog is
not specific enough to distinguish the lost dog from many other dogs.
Generous reward is also vague because there are many borderline cases.
A million dollars is clearly generous; a nickel is not. But what about one
hundred dollars?
18. Ambiguous. A teacher is hitting lazy students, or the teachers are on strike,
which is leaving the kids with nothing to do.
19. Ambiguous pronoun reference: she can refer to either Jana or her sister.
20. Ambiguous, thankfully.

22
III.
1. Verbal
2. Factual
3. Verbal
4. Factual
5. Verbal
6. Verbal
7. Factual
8. Verbal
Exercise 4.2
I.
Answers to the exercise will vary greatly. The point of the exercise is to show students
that they should attempt to define terms to the satisfaction of their readers and listeners;
therefore, they should avoid personal or persuasive definitions and focus on lexical and
precising ones. The exercise also helps students recognize the value of illustrations in
defining terms, given that terms like rock and roll and horror movie can hardly be defined
well without examples. Many of the words in the list lend themselves well to genus and
difference definitions, because students must supply characteristics to distinguish, for
example, one type of music from another.
II.
This exercise works well for class discussion and as a source of assignments for short
papers. When assigning papers based on this exercise, I ask students to choose one item
and to organize their papers into two main sections, the first defining the term and the
second applying the definition to the action to show whether the action fits the definition.
Class discussions, however, are not as formal or premeditated, and some very interesting
conversations ensue when students give their initial responses to the question and find
themselves trapped in inconsistencies. Two words of caution: some definitions (assault,
for example) require legal definitions that must be located in specialized sources such as
Blacks Law Dictionary. And some of the items canand probably shouldbe limited to
a particular context. In class discussion you can provide contextual parameters to help
narrow the question.
Below are two short essays I received from students. For some readers the second
essay may present too simplistic a definition of art, but the writer shows that he can use
various strategies to define a term.
5. Nancy has a paper due tomorrow morning. She has written a very rough, undeveloped
draft. Last semester Nancys roommate, Sharon, wrote a paper on the very same topic.
Sharon gives Nancy the paper and tells her to take as much of it as you want. With
23
Sharons permission and help, Nancy uses Sharons paper to develop her own. Is Nancy
guilty of plagiarizing?
The question is whether Nancy is guilty of plagiarizing her roommate Sharon's paper for
a Critical Thinking class. I believe that Nancy is guilty of plagiarism because she did not
complete the paper using her own knowledge and ability.
The definition of plagiarism is very clear. According to Merriam-Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary, plagiarism means, "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of
another) as one's own; use (a created production) without crediting the source"
(Plagiarism). It is deliberately and voluntarily copying another person's work word-for-
word. The person is just restating what someone else has said. A new or original idea is
not being presented, and he or she knows that what they are doing is wrong, yet they
choose to do so anyway. The definition in no way excuses copying another person's work
even if the other person gives permission. "To put your name on a piece of work any part
of which is not yours is plagiarism, unless that piece is clearly marked and the work from
which you have borrowed is fully identified.". Plagiarism is a form of theft"
(Plagiarism, Academic).
The term plagiarism directly applies to the situation of Nancy and her roommate
Sharon. Nancy has waited until the last minute to write a paper for her class. She has
been lazy in not doing her work, but now she realizes that she has run out of time. Her
roommate, thinking that she is being a good friend by helping Nancy out, tells her to
"take as much of it as you want", referring to the paper she wrote last semester on the
same topic. Despite the fact that Sharon willingly gave the paper to Nancy, when the
definitions given above are taken into account, she has still committed an act of
plagiarism. Nancy has deliberately used ideas or statements of Sharon's as her own. In
addition, she has taken credit for words and ideas that she did not think of herself. The
ideas that she has presented are not original. Most likely, in developing her paper, she has
not given any credit to Sharon for her work. Nancy has stolen something from Sharon,
her creativity and intelligence. This is an act that should not go ignored. Nancy is clearly
committing an act of academic dishonesty. She has cheated; not only herself from the
knowledge she may have acquired by doing the research herself, but also her professor.
Even if her professor had never found out, she still had lied in handing in someone else's
work.
I realize that there will be some people who disagree with me on whether Nancy
has committed an act of plagiarism. Some will argue that Nancy didn't plagiarize because
Sharon consented to Nancy using the paper. Despite the fact that Sharon voluntarily gave
Nancy permission to use the paper, she still copied from it. Another possible argument in
opposition to my position may be that it wasn't plagiarism because Nancy didn't copy
from a respected source such as an encyclopedia or dictionary. Yet, when the definition is
applied, Nancy has tried to pass of words or ideas that are not her own without giving
credit to the author. In other words, she has plagiarized. It is vague as to how much
Nancy actually used "to develop" her paper. Yet, the amount that she took from Sharon is
immaterial; she actually used Sharon's ideas. I believe it is evident that Nancy was wrong
in what she did. If new information is discovered in this case, specifically if Nancy did in
some way give credit to Sharon as her source for the paper, then I will reexamine my
position. However, at this time I feel that Nancy has plagiarized Sharon's paper and as a
24
result, disciplinary action should be taken to discourage her and others at this college
from repeating this type of behavior. --Jamie Drula (used with permission)
___________________________________
Works Cited
Plagiarism. Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. 10th ed. 1993.
"Plagiarism. Academic Writing at WFU. 1999. Wake Forest University. 7 Dec. 1999.
http://english.tribble.wfu.edu/english/writing4.htm.
9. One day out of frustration your roommate throws a full plate of mashed potatoes
against the wall of the room, where, amazingly, it sticks. You get up to remove the plate
and potatoes from the wall. Leave it, your roommate insists. It says something. Its
art. Its garbage, you reply. Who is right?
My roommate is wrong; the mess he has created is indeed garbage. There is no possible
way I am going to allow those potatoes on our wall.
Art, as defined in Merriam-Websters online dictionary, is the conscious use of
skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects and the
works so produced (Art, Merriam). The American Heritage Dictionary adds that art
is human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. It is the
conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other
elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the
beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium is art. The term art, the dictionary continues,
also refers to a field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature (Art,
American).
Art, then, is the deliberate (or conscious) use of skill and imagination to make
something new that affects our sense of beauty. Art is painting, photography, drawing,
sculpture, architecture, music, and dance. La Guernica by Picasso is art. The
Williamsport Philharmonic, CATS, The Nutcracker, the Eiffel Tower, and Load by
Metallica are all art. All of these productions, whether we like them or not, are
intentionally created to appeal to us and affect us in some way. The key here is intention.
Given the definition of art, it is very clear that a piece of art must be intentionally
and consciously produced. By just throwing the plate against the wall out of frustration,
my roommate shows that he had no intention of the plate sticking and forming a piece of
art. This mess on the wall may very well draw emotion to a viewer. However it was not
deliberately created in an effort to imitate, supplement, alter, nor counteract the work of
nature. The throwing of the plate against the wall was not a conscious use of skill in the
order to produce an aesthetic object anymore than an elephant with a paintbrush in its
trunk creates art when it slaps paint on a canvas. The potatoes were not deliberately
25
arranged in a certain order and thus show no conscious use of a medium. By putting no
conscious or intentional effort for the plate on the wall, it cannot be ruled as art.
--David Boyer (used with permission)
_____________________________
Works Cited
Art. Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary. Online. 2001. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-

bin/dictionary
Art. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Fourth Edition.
Online. 2000. http://www.bartleby.com/61/9/A0440900.html.
III.
1. Stipulative 11. Persuasive

2. Lexical 12. Precising
3. Persuasive 13. Lexical
4. Precising 14. Stipulative
6. Precising 16. Lexical
7. Lexical 17. Precising
9. Precising 19. Lexical
10. Persuasive 20. Precising
IV.
1. Enumerative 11. Etymological

2. Synonymous 12. Ostensive
3. Etymological 13. Synonymous
4. Subclass 14. Synonymous
5. Genus and difference, and 15. Subclass
synonymous 16. Etymological
6. Synonymous 17. Ostensive
7. Ostensive 18. Ostensive
8. Enumerative 19. Synonymous
9. Synonymous 20. Etymological
10. Genus and difference, and
synonymous
26
V.
1. Too broad 11. Slanted

2. Circular 12. Circular
3. Slanted 13. Too broad
4. Lacking in context 14. Figurative
5. Too narrow 15. Non-essential meaning
6. Non-essential meaning 16. Slanted
7. Circular 17. Lacking in context
8. Too obscure (Also too narrow.) 18. Too broad
9. Slanted 19. Too obscure
10. Lacking in context 20. Figurative
Exercise 4.3
I.
The more creative students in your class will enjoy this exercise. The more literal minded
may find the exercise taxing and unenlightening. If you dont want to spend the time in
small groups, the exercise works well as a short class discussion, perhaps at the end of the
period, when you have a few moments to discuss the practical applications of the days
lesson on language. Because the first part of the exercise asks students to invent names
for vehicles, you might share with the students Marianne Moores correspondence with
the Ford Motor Company. She was asked to come up with a name for their newest car in
1950. She humorously suggested such things as The Magigravue, The Turcotingo, and
The Utopian Turtletop. Ford choose instead Edsel. (You can find the story at several
good sites:
American-Lit.com (http://homepage.mac.com/hinshaw/truemmoore.html) and Modern
American Poets (http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/).
II.
The second part of the exercise invites observations on the building and naming of
suburban housing developments and shopping centers. Some students will enjoy the
opportunity to comment on how such propertywhich is often bland, unremarkable, and
identical in its architecture and designis made more attractive and unique through
labeling.
As an added topic for discussion in this section, one that works very well for
driving home the chapters point about the emotive quality of language, ask your students
about their names and the names of their siblings, children, or pets. Ask students whether
theyve ever had to choose a name for a child or a pet. Ask them what went into the
decision and what effect they hoped to achieve. Ask them about their own names: Are
they happy with them? Do their names say anything about them as individuals? When
they hear certain names, how do they respond? You might share with them the following
lists. The first provides the most popular names for babies born in 2000 and the most
27
popular baby names in the 1880s. The second provides the given names of some
celebrities and their more familiar stage name.
Baby names (Source: babycenter.com)
2000 1880
Girls Boys Girls Boys
1. Hannah Michael Mary John
2. Emily Jacob Anna William
3. Sarah Matthew Elizabeth Charles
4. Madison Nicholas Margaret George
5. Brianna Christopher Minnie James
6. Kaylee Joseph Emma Joseph
7. Kaitlyn Zachary Martha Frank
8. Haley Joshua Alice Henry
9. Alexis Andrew Marie Thomas
10. Elizabeth William Annie, Sarah Harry
Celebrity Names
Better Known As Born
Woody Allen Steward Konigsberg
Fred Astaire Frederick Austerlitz
Pat Benatar Patricia Andrzejewski
Tony Bennett Antonio Dominic Benedetto
Mel Brooks Melvin Kaminsky
George Burns Nathan Birnbaum
Nicholas Cage Nicholas Coppola
Michael Caine Maurice Joseph Micklewhite
Alice Cooper Vincent Furnier
David Copperfield David Kotkin
Elvis Costello Declan Patrick MacManus
Tom Cruise Thomas Mapother IV
Rodney Dangerfield Jacob Cohen
James Dean James Byron
John Denver John Henry Deutschendorf
Kirk Douglas Issur Danielovitch
Bob Dylan Robert Allen Zimmerman
Whoopi Goldberg Caryn Johnson
Cary Grant Archibald Alexander Leach
Charlton Heston John Charles Carter
Billie Holiday Eleanora Fagan
Elton John Reginald Kenneth Dwight
Ralph Lauren Ralph Lipshitz
28
Jerry Lewis Joseph Levitch

Sophia Loren Sofia Scicolone
Elle McPherson Eleanor Gow
Madonna Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone
Cher Cherilyn Sarkisian
Malcolm X Malcolm Little
Walter Matthau Walter Matuschanskavasky
Meat Loaf Marvin Lee Adair
George Michael Georgios Kyriacos Panayiotou
Marilyn Monroe Norma Jean Mortenson
Demi Moore Demetria Guynes
Muddy Waters McKinley Morganfield
Prince Prince Rogers Nelson
Ginger Rogers Virginia Katherine McMath
Roy Rogers Leonard Slye
Jane Seymour Joyce Penelope Wilhemina Frankenberg
Martin Sheen Ramon Estevez
Sting Gordon Sumner
John Wayne Marion Michael Morrison
Stevie Wonder Steveland Judkins
Exercise 4.4
I.
This is another exercise that asks students to think about how they use language and to
think about the differences between similar words. Careless choices in diction lead to
misunderstanding and frustration. The point of this exercise is not to find the correct
word or to provide a list of perfect synonyms but to provide similar words that have
obvious or subtle differences in meaning. Students are being encouraged in this
exercise to think about the richness and variety in the English language and to commit
themselves to the hard work of selecting precise and accurate words. In a scene in the
film Twelve Angry Men, Juror #4 reports that the defendant claimed to have been
slapped by his father. Juror #4 is reminded by another juror that the young man
claimed to have been punched. Juror #4 settles on hit. Some students want to say
there is no difference. One approach to the assignment is to have students think of as
many synonyms as they can for a term and then to discuss some of the differences in
denotation and connotation among the words listed. Obviously, students with good
vocabularies will participate more enthusiastically.
1. This one is done as an example in the text.
2. Possible choices: exclaimed, intoned, declared, insisted, whispered, mumbled,

declared, cried, stated, uttered, asserted, confessed, blurted, admitted. Some
words suggest the speakers sense of freedom, whereas others suggest
29
trepidation or anxiety.
3. Possible choices: demanded, requested, begged, implored, pleaded. Most

words that students choose for this item will portray a demanding child. To
describe the child as excited or pleasant, the word exclaimed might be used
(squealed?), or the word said could be qualified: the child said optimistically,
excitedly, hopefully, gleefully, and so forth.
4. Possible choices: begged, pleaded, requested, implored, insisted, demanded,

screamed, Begged, pleaded, and implored suggest that the speaker is
dependent on the listener or that she is desperate. Demanded shows that she
has more power over the listener, making please in the sentence merely
courteous or perhaps sarcastic.
5. Possible choices: ogle, stare at, eyeball, eye up, watch, check out, scrutinize.
Most of these words are accusatory, but students could be asked to supply
words with more positive connotations (behold comes to mind). If students
offer choices such as notice or see, you can talk about whether these words
accurately capture the apparent intent of the speaker. Students could be asked
to discuss tone and how tone can change the meaning of the sentence as it is
stated in the text: Did you look at that woman? This and other items in this
exercise offer a chance to discuss how a words connotation and meaning can
be altered by context. The word right in a court transcript can have a variety
of meanings depending on how it was said.
6. Possible choices: demolished, destroyed, broke, cracked, snapped, shattered,

scratched. Although a cracked CD is a destroyed CD, students can discuss
when it is necessary or appropriate to be specific.
7. Possible choices: gripped, grabbed, clutched, seized, squeezed. Gripped

connotes aggression or dominance; clutched suggests fear or protection.
8. Possible choices: nuts, crazy, insane, out of your mind, not thinking clearly,
unwise, stupid, imprudent, thoughtless, irrational, stupid, foolish, silly,
reckless. Some of these choices (not thinking clearly, foolish, imprudent) are
more forgiving than others. Some (insane, crazy) might be insensitive.
9. Possible choices: committed to, devoted to, dedicated to, obsessed with.
Students might be asked to comment on the difference between believing in a
cause and being devoted to it.
10. Possible choices: cold, hard-hearted, apathetic, callous, insensitive,

unsympathetic. These words are all close in meaning, but callous might imply
a roughness developed after many disappointments, and apathetic suggests
indifference and a lack of concern.
30
11. Possible choices: lazy, contemplative, idle, lethargic, sedentary, unmotivated,

apathetic, passive, laid-back, unhurried, a slacker, workshy (British).
12. Choices might be endless: mad, furious, outraged, incensed, irritated, livid,
irate, enraged, outraged, infuriated, cross, pissed off, apoplectic, inflamed,
upset, annoyed, irritated, riled up, bothered, exasperated, frustrated.
13. Possible choices: accepted, okayed, endorsed, praised, admired, celebrated.

These words all have different meanings, but they share the notion of
approval. However, some of the words (praised, celebrated) suggest
something far more positive than others (accepted, okayed).
14. Possible choices: selfish, self-centered, egotistical, egocentric, greedy,

conceited, vain, inconsiderate, insensitive, narcissistic, thoughtless,
uncharitable, unkind, uncaring, careless, insensitive, discourteous.
15. Possible choices: shocking, indecent, unacceptable, offensive, out of place,

unethical, unsuitable, reprehensible, rude, improper, abnormal, unsuitable,
unconventional, unorthodox, unusual, unseemly, indelicate.
II.
1. Emotive words and phrases in the advertisement include charming, cozy (code for
small?), older neighborhood, lower-level recreation room (basement?), modern,
tender loving care (needs lots of work?). All these words are used to create a warm
and receptive attitude in the prospective buyer.
2. Almost all of the words are emotive. You might point out that some of the words
(mature, petite,) might also be euphemisms. An interesting variation of this exercise
involves having students describe themselves for a dating service, using only selected
words that will generate the most positive emotional responses. Or have them describe
themselves to a job agency. Alternatively, have them list four or five personal traits
they know they need to improve (e.g., "loves to watch professional wrestling") and
have the students rewrite the phrases with a positive spin. This exercise, naturally,
dovetails well with the following section on euphemisms. And students enjoy writing
euphemistically about themselves.
3. Emotive words include traipsed, disrupt, indoctrinate, circumventing, hovered,

spread, gospel, self-indulgent, terrorism.
4. This passage does not have the obvious kinds of emotive language that critical thinking
students get accustomed to looking forthe blatant emotional appeals, sarcastic
slanting and name-calling characteristic of the preceding passages. I think its
important to let students know that some writing (such as you find in literary essays),
contains more subtle emotional appeals. The emotive words and phrases in this
passage include family herd, grandmas practiced eye, desperate families, flooded,
seeking, bundle, toddlers, hang, unswaddle, species. Students might be asked how
Kingsolver carefully sets up her final sentence with a subtle, emotionally charged
31
passage. They might also comment on whether the historical description of womens
work is relevant to the point suggested in the final sentence. Im not sure it is.
5. There are almost too many emotional appeals to count. Here are just a handful: world
split into two vast, increasingly hostile armed camps; impotency; invade our shores;
traitorous actions; infested with Communists; the graft, the corruption, the dishonesty,
the disloyalty, the treason; emotional hang-over; moral lapse; apathy to evil; cloak of
numbness; whole sorry mess of twisted, warped thinkers; swept from the national
scene; new birth of national honesty and decency.
III.
We've used encyclopedia articles on John Brown to show that even supposedly objective
sources are filled with emotive language. Here are just the opening paragraphs of entries
on John Brown in several encyclopedias:
Colliers, 1997
BROWN, JOHN (1800-1859), one of the most extreme and violent of American
abolitionists, was born on May 9, 1800, at Torrington, Conn. The son of Owen Brown
and Ruth Mills Brown, he was descended from a Mayflower passenger on his father's
side. At the age of five he was taken to Hudson, O., where he spent the rest of his child-
hood and youth. After a rudimentary education, he began working in his father's leather
tannery and then went into business on his own.
A restless man, eager to try his luck anywhere, Brown worked for over
twenty-five years in leather tanning and the wool business in at least ten different
locations, ranging from Richmond, Pa., and Springfield, Mass., in the east to Akron, O.,
in the west. His ventures did not prosper, and in 1842 he was declared bankrupt while
living in Richfield, O. He then joined with Simon Perkins of Akron in a new company
selling wool, moving to Springfield to take charge of the firm's office there. Brown's
business career ended in 1849 with the dissolution of his partnership with Perkins.
Litigation continued for several years thereafter.
Groliers, 2000
BROWN, JOHN (1800-1859). American abolitionist who took direct action to free
slaves by force. He was convicted of treason, conspiracy, and murder following his raid
on Harpers Ferry, Va. (now W.Va.), Oct. 16-18, 1859, and was executed on December 2.
The most controversial of the abolitionists, Brown was regarded by some as a martyr and
by others as a common assassin. Still others questioned his sanity.
Brown's name often is linked in the public mind with that of William Lloyd
Garrison, as an extremist. Unlike Brown, however, Garrison was a pacifist. Northern
resistance to slavery found leaders with radically different methods.
The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1975
32
BROWN, JOHN. Born May 9, 1800, in Torrington, Connecticut; died Dec. 2, 1859, in
Charles Town, Virginia. Fighter for the emancipation of the Negro slaves in the USA.
One of the leaders of the left wing of the abolitionist movement. Author of antislavery
pamphlets.
Brown participated in the activity of the so-called underground railroad. In
1855-56 he organized an armed struggle against slaveholders in Kansas. He worked out a
plan for the establishment of a free republic in the Allegheny Mountains as a base for the
struggle against slavery, and he composed a draft for its democratic provisional
constitution. Carrying out his plan, Brown captured the government arsenal in Harpers
Ferry (in the slaveholding state of Virginia) on Oct. 16, 1859, with a band of 18 people
(including five Negroes). The band was surrounded by troops and almost completely
annihilated. Two of Brown's sons were killed, and he was himself seriously wounded. In
accordance with a court sentence Brown was hanged in Charles Town. Brown's uprising,
which immediately preceded the Civil War of 1861-65, was an open challenge to slavery.
His name became a symbol for revolutionary action and the struggle for the rights of the
Negro people.
Chambers, 1973
BROWN, JOHN (1800-59), American abolitionist, was born in Connecticut on 9 May
1800 of a family in which there was a marked strain of insanity. He spent 50 years trying
to make a success is business and failed. He was likewise interested in the welfare of
Negroes in slavery and became a fanatic on the subject of abolition, believing himself
called of the Lord to serve the cause of freedom. He went out to Kansas in the early days
of its settlement and engaged in land speculating, cattle trading and the political feuding
which were all closely intertwined. He participated in some acts of violence, notably the
brutal killing of five political opponents at the Potawatomie massacre in May 1856.
Brown had friends among eastern philanthropists who were attracted by his great
zeal. They gave money to develop a plan to free the slaves by force. In 1858 he
conducted a raid on a Missouri farmer and ran off slaves to Canada. Then he began his
last effort. He would invade slave states and establish refuges in the mountains, first in
Virginia, and invite and bring slaves thither. His hope was that this wholesale liberation
would cause Virginia to abolish slavery. Then he would go into other regions and repeat
his exploits. He prepared for his first raid in the summer of 1859 with financial support
from prominent philanthropists; it seems incredible that they should not have known what
Brown was planning. His raid of 16 Oct. 1859 upon Harpers Ferry where a government
arsenal and rifle manufactory were located was easily stopped. No one joined him and his
small force of 20 was killed or captured. He was tried, and hanged on 2 Dec. 1859.
Britannica, 1997
BROWN, JOHN (b. May 9, 1800, Torrington, Conn., U.S.-d. Dec. 2, 1859,
Charlestown, Va.), militant American Abolitionist whose raid on the federal arsenal at
Harpers Ferry, Va., in 1859 made him a martyr to the anti-slavery cause and was
instrumental in heightening sectional animosities that led to the American Civil War
(1861-65).
33
Moving about restlessly through Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New

York, Brown was barely able to support his large family in any of several vocations at
which he tried his hand: tanner, sheep drover, wool merchant, farmer, and land speculator.
Exercise 4.5
Some students will try to see euphemisms and emotive language as two separate issues.
We try in this part of the chapter to show that euphemisms are a form of emotive
language used to deliberately hide the truth, so that someone who says that he was a bit of
a radical in college might be speaking accurately about his activities, or he might be
trying to put a positive spin on his delinquency. In either case, the phrase "bit of a radical"
has emotive meaning, but when it is used to hide the truth, it falls into the category of
euphemism. When deciding whether a word or phrase is euphemistic or politically
correct, you might ask, Does this word accurately label the objective action or person it
refers to? In other words, students might list the actions of several college students:
Before the game, Adam stole States mascot, scratched his fraternitys letters into the
walls of tavern restrooms, and tore down a goalpost; Betty joined the Young Communists
Club and protested the bookstores selling of non-union made clothing; Carla burned
down the presidents home. Who, if anyone, deserves the term radical or delinquent?
In examining the euphemisms and politically correct terms in Exercise 4.5, you
might ask students the same sort of question: is, for example, convict a more accurate
term than socially separated for someone who is serving time in prison? Some
enterprising students might look up the words on the left side of the page to see if their
etymology and lexical meanings provide any insight into their accurate use. Convict
comes from the same Latin root from which we get convince: convincere, meaning to
prove wrong, from vincere, to overcome. So a convict is someone who has been proven
wrong (or guilty) in a court of law. Socially separated, which could refer to an elderly
shut-in, is not accurate when describing a prisoner who has been tried and convicted. So
convict is the better choice. Socially separated is inaccurate, euphemistic, and perhaps
politically correct.
34
Chapter 5: Logical Fallacies-1
Exercise 5.1
1. Positively relevant
3. Irrelevant
4. Irrelevant
7. Negatively relevant.
9. Irrelevant
10. Positively relevant (Although the premises don't provide evidence for God's
existence, they do provide prudential, or self-interested, reasons for belief in God.
Whether these prudential reasons are properly convincing is, of course, another
question.)
13. The first premise is negatively relevant, and the second premise is positively relevant
14. Positively relevant (Because many Chinese girls are aborted or put up for foreign
adoption, there are more boys than girls in China.)
15. Positively relevant (In a democracy, the fact that most citizens want something to be
legal, does generally provide at least some reason why that thing should be legal.)
Exercise 5.2
I.
1. Bandwagon argument 17. Red herring

2. Personal attack 18. Appeal to pity
3. Appeal to pity 19. No fallacy
4. Straw man 20. Scare tactics
5. Look who's talking 21. Personal attack
6. Equivocation 22. Straw man
7. Begging the question 23. Attacking the motive
8. Attacking the motive 24. Two wrongs make a right
9. Scare tactics 25. Red herring
10. Two wrongs make a right 26. No fallacy or appeal to pity
11. Straw man 27. Scare tactics
12. No fallacy 28. Attacking the motive
13. Equivocation 29. Equivocation
14. Bandwagon. 30. Begging the question
15. Look who's talking 31. Bandwagon argument
16. No fallacy 32. Look who's talking
35
33. Two wrongs make a right 37. Red herring

34. Bandwagon argument 38. No fallacy
35. Straw man 39. Personal attack
36. Equivocation 40. No fallacy
II.
This is a good active learning exercise. Some of the examples students come up with tend
to be pretty funny.
III.
Students find this exercise challenging, and many of the examples they come up with will
not in fact be examples of the fallacies they allege. Nevertheless, the exercise is useful in
getting students to think about fallacies of relevance and to begin to be on the look-out
for them in real-life contexts.
36
Chapter 6: Logical Fallacies-2
Exercise 6.1
I.
1. Inappropriate appeal to authority 20. Questionable cause

2. Questionable cause 21. Slippery slope
3. Loaded question 22. Hasty generalization
4. Inappropriate appeal to authority 23. False alternatives
5. Appeal to ignorance 24. Weak analogy
6. Inconsistency 25. Inappropriate appeal to authority
7. Hasty generalization 26. No fallacy
8. Inconsistency 27. Loaded question
9. False alternatives. 28. Inconsistency
10. Inappropriate appeal to authority 29. Questionable cause
11. Slippery slope 30. Inappropriate appeal to authority
12. Appeal to ignorance 31. False alternatives
13. Weak analogy 32. Weak analogy
14. No fallacy 33. No fallacy
15. Loaded question 34. Weak analogy
16. Inappropriate appeal to authority 35. Hasty generalization
17. No fallacy. (The analogy is a good 36. Appeal to ignorance
one.) 37. Hasty generalization
18. No fallacy (assuming that the risk of 38. Weak analogy
avalanche is real) 39. No fallacy
19. No fallacy 40. Slippery slope
II.
1. Loaded question 15. Personal attack

2. Questionable cause 16. Hasty generalization
3. Weak analogy 17. Slippery slope
4. False alternatives (assuming that an 18. Weak analogy; possible slippery
argument is being given) slope
5. Weak analogy 19. False alternatives
6. Look who's talking and personal 20. Personal attack
attack; also possible inconsistency 21. Slippery slope
7. False alternatives 22. Hasty generalization
8. Weak analogy 23. Personal attack; possible red herring
9. Begging the question 24. Questionable cause
10. Questionable cause 25. Weak analogy
11. Two wrongs make a right 26. Slippery slope
12. Weak analogy 27. Ad hominem
13. Equivocation 28. Appeal to ignorance
14. Weak analogy 29. Inconsistency
37
30. Questionable cause
III.
Students enjoy this exercise, and it is a good source of examples for the game in Exercise
6.1., Part VI.
IV.
This exercise works well with stronger students. With weaker students, youll find that
most of the examples they collect are either not fallacies at all or not the fallacies they
think they are. Still, treasure hunts may be worthwhile, even if most of the "treasure"
brought back is fools gold.
V.
We encourage you to try this exercise; it's always a hit with our students. We've found
that students do much better spotting the fallacies if they are assigned an individual juror
to watch.
Evidence Against the Accused
1. The old man downstairs claims (a) he heard the accused yell, "I'm gonna kill you!"
followed by the sound of a body hitting the floor, and (b) he saw the accused running
down the stairs fifteen seconds after the murder.
2. The woman across the el-tracks claims she saw the accused stab his father through the
windows of a passing el-train.
3. The knife was identified as the defendant's by several witnesses and was allegedly
one-of-a-kind.
4. The accused had a weak alibi. He couldn't remember the names of the movies or who
played in them. Also, he claims, implausibly, that the knife fell through a hole in his
pocket on his way to the movies.
5. The accused had a motive: He had regularly been beaten up by his father, and he had
been "hit" by his father earlier that evening.
6. The accused had a prior record (including two arrests for knife fighting).
38
How This Evidence Was Later Weakened or Undermined by Critical Thinking
Versus 1a: The el-train was making too much noise for the witness to have reliably
identified the defendant's voice.
Versus 1b: Juror #8 proved that it would have taken the witness at least 41 seconds
(actually 31 seconds: time it!) to have walked from his bedroom to the front door--not the
fifteen seconds the witness claimed. Moreover, there are general reasons for doubting the
credibility of the old mans testimony. As Juror #9 pointed out, the witness apparently
wasn't very observant (he wore a torn jacket to court). Also, according to Juror #3, he was
confused much of the time on the stand.
Versus 2: As Juror #9 pointed out, the woman had marks on her nose, indicating that she
wore glasses. Since the woman presumably wasn't wearing her glasses at the time of the
murder, it's doubtful she could have clearly identified the defendant.
Versus 3: Juror #8 bought another knife just like the murder weapon at a pawn shop just a
few blocks from the defendant's apartment; this proved that the knife wasn't unique.
Moreover, why would the accused have left the knife sticking in his father's chest (taking
care to wipe off any fingerprints) and then come back to the apartment, knowing that the
murder had likely been detected and that the knife could be identified as the one he had
just bought?
Versus 4: As Juror #8 showed, it's not always easy to remember details when one is under
great emotional stress.
Versus 5: As Juror #8 pointed out, it's not clear how strong a motive this was, given the
defendant's long history of physical abuse.
Versus 6: On the other hand, as Juror #5 pointed out, someone as handy with a knife as
the accused probably would have gone for his victim underhanded.
Fallacies Committed by the Jurors
Juror #1: Foreman and high school football coach (Martin Balsam)
No fallacies.
Juror #2: Bank clerk (John Fiedler)
Appeal to ignorance: (I just think hes guilty. . . . Nobody proved

otherwise.)
39
Juror #3: Head of messenger service (Lee J. Cobb)
Inconsistency: ("You can throw out all the other evidence. The woman saw him do
it. . . . "What about all the other evidence? The knife? The whole business?")
Inconsistency: (How could he be positive about anything? Half the time

he was confused.)
Attacking the person: ("You lousy bunch of bleeding hearts, you're not going to
intimidate me")
Attacking the person: ("You keep coming in with all these bright sayings. Why
don't you send them into a paper? They pay three dollars apiece.")
Red herring: ("You can't prove that he didn't get to the door!") (Also possible
appeal to ignorance.)
Red herring: ("How do you know she didn't have [her glasses] on?")
Weak analogy: ("What is this, underprivileged brother week or something? Why

don't you drop a quarter in his collection box?")
Juror #4: Stockbroker (E.G. Marshall)
No fallacies.
Juror #5: Mechanic (Jack Klugman)
No fallacies.
Juror #6: Housepainter (Edward Binns)
Scare tactics: ("You say stuff like that to him again, I'm gonna lay you out.")
(Not a clear-cut case, because it's not obvious the housepainter is rejecting any
argument offered by Juror #3)
False alternatives: ("If you don't have a motive, where's your case?")
Juror #7: Salesman
Bandwagon argument: ("What's there to talk about? Eleven of us in here

think he's guilty.")
40
Weak analogy: ("Supposing we're wrong! Supposing this whole building

should fall on our heads. You can suppose anything.")
Weak analogy: (How do you like this guy? It's like talking into a dead phone."
Hasty generalization: ("I'm telling you they're all like. They come over here
running for their life, and before they can take a
deep breath, they're telling us how to run the show.")
False alternatives: (What're you get out of this--kicks? Or did somebody

bump you on the head one time, and haven't gotten over it?)
Juror #8: Architect (Henry Fonda)
Appeal to pity: ("This kid's been kicked around all his life. . . . I just think we
owe him a few words, that all.") (Not a clear-cut case, because it's not obvious the
appeal is irrelevant in this context.)
Juror #9: Old Man (Joseph Sweeney)
No fallacies.
Juror #10: Garage owner (Ed Begley)
Bandwagon argument: ("Boy oh boy, there's always one.")
Bandwagon argument: ("How come you're the only one in this room who wants
to see exhibits all the time?")
Hasty generalization: ("They're no good. Not a one of them is any good."

"They're real big drinkers, all of them." "The kids who crawl out of them are real
trash." "You can't believe a word they say." "Human life don't mean as much to
them as it does to us." "Most of 'em, it's like they have no feelings." "They're born
liars." "They don't know what the truth is. "Those people are dangerous. They're
wild.")
Inconsistency: ("You can't trust a word they say"--but he believes the

woman's testimony, even though she's one of "them," too.)
Attacking the person: ("Oh, stop being a kid, will you.")
Attacking the person: ("He's the fifteenth assistant or something. What

does he know about it?")
41
Questionable cause: ("You know how these people lie. It's born in them.")
Juror #11: Watchmaker (George Voscovec)
No fallacies.
Juror #12: Ad man (Robert Webber)
No fallacies.
VI.
Students have fun with this exercise. Check the Additional Resources section of this
manual for examples that can be used in the game.
42
Chapter 7: Analyzing Arguments
Exercise 7.1
1. Bertie probably isn't home. His car isn't in the driveway, and there are no
lights on in his house.
2. No members of the volleyball team like hip hop. Andrea is a member of the
volleyball team. So, Andrea doesn't like hip hop.
3. Dont copy off Sturdleys exam. Hes one of the worst students in class. My
roommate told me hes bombed every test this semester.
4. Affirmative action in higher education is morally justifiable, because it

compensates for past discrimination, provides valuable role models for women and
minorities, and promotes multicultural understanding.
43
5. Either this is my car or it's Sandy's car. If it is my car, then the key should fit in
the lock. But my key doesn't fit in the lock. So, this is Sandy's car.
6. Wexford College is a really great college. The students are friendly. The
faculty really care about the students. The campus is beautiful, and the athletic
facilities are great.
7. Only three people could have stolen the CD: Danny, Stacy, or Patrick. But Stacy
couldn't have stolen the CD, because she was out riding her bike. Patrick couldn't
have stolen the CD, because he was at a friend's house. Therefore, Danny must have
stolen the CD.
8. Something is a square only if it is a rectangle. But this isn't a rectangle. Look,

it only has three sides, and some of the sides aren't even straight. So, this can't be a
square.
44
9. Lasse speaks fluent Finnish. It is likely, then, that Lasse was born in Finland.
Anyone born in Finland is a Finnish citizen. So Lasse is likely a Finnish citizen.
Finnish citizens are entitled to European Union travel privileges. So Lasse is probably
entitled to European Union travel privileges.
10. Several states have abolished the insanity defense against criminal responsibility.
This may be popular with voters, but it is morally indefensible. Insanity removes
moral responsibility, and it is wrong to punish someone who is not morally responsible
for his crime. Moreover, it is pointless to punish the insane, because punishment has
no deterrent effect on a person who cannot appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of
his or her actions.
45
11. Jeremiah is a bullfrog. It follows since all bullfrogs are amphibians that
Jeremiah is an amphibian. All amphibians can drink wine. So Jeremiah can help me
drink my wine.
12. It's foolish to smoke cigarettes. Smoking is expensive, unhealthy, and

obnoxious to many nonsmokers. I wouldn't date anyone who smokes cigarettes.
13. If today is Saturday, then tomorrow is Sunday. If tomorrow is Sunday, then we'll
be having pasta for dinner. If we'll be having pasta for dinner, then I should pick up
some red wine today, since in this state wine can be purchased only at liquor stores,
and the liquor stores are closed on Sundays. Today is Saturday. Therefore, I
should pick up some red wine today.
14. It makes no sense to ask God for things in prayer. The thing you ask for is either
good or it is not. If it is good, then God will do it anyway. If it is not, then he won't.
In neither case, can your prayer make any difference.
46
15. If Amy isn't dating Sturdley, then she's dating Mel or Steve. Amy isn't dating
Sturdley, since she doesn't date anyone who uses drugs, and Sturdley sniffs glue
practically every weekend. Thus, Amy is dating Mel or Steve. However, Amy won't
date anyone who isn't a football player, nor will she date anyone who isn't good-
looking. Both Mel and Steve are good-looking, but Steve isn't a football player.
Consequently, Amy is not dating Steve. We can logically deduce, therefore, that (11)
Amy is dating Mel.
Exercise 7.1
II.
1. Since our feelings, desires, and preferences can be either beneficial or harmful,
noble or ignoble, praiseworthy or damnable, and since they can be either in harmony
or in conflict with other people's feelings, desires, and preferences, they are obviously
not accurate tools for analysis of moral issues or trustworthy guidelines to action.
47
2. Suppose you had one sheep which fell into a ditch on the Sabbath; is there one of
you who would not catch hold of it and lift it out? And surely a man is worth more
than a sheep! It is therefore permitted to do good on the Sabbath.
3. Wealth is not sought except for the sake of something else, because of itself it
brings us no good, but only when we use it, whether for the support of the body or some
similar purpose. Now the highest good is sought for its own sake, and not for anothers
sake. Therefore wealth is not mans highest good. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Contra Gentiles).
4. School tests should be abolished. Tests introduce competition where it does not
belong. They deny the individuality of students' talents and interests They degrade
education by encouraging passivity, mindlessness, and triviality. Finally, they send the
wrong messages about what is valuable in education and in life.
48
5. The rule of equal incomes is socially impracticable. It would deter the great
majority of the more efficient from putting forth their best efforts and turning out their
maximum product. As a consequence, the total volume of product would be so
diminished as to render the share of the great majority of persons smaller than it would
have been under a rational plan of unequal distribution.
6. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it
to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the wise
cannot see all ends.
7. Everything eternal is necessary. But whatever God wills, he wills from eternity,
for otherwise His will would be mutable. Therefore, whatever He wills, He
wills necessarily.
8. Testing at the national level is indicated; we are all aware of the abysmal
education of too many young people, especially in certain areas and certain schools.
Such people tend to become narrow-minded, ignorant and hateful, and contribute little to
advancing the highest ideals of which we are capable. National testing can help to
devote extra attention to such places.
49
9. If a body moves, either it must move in the pace where it is or in the place where it
is not. But it cannot move in the place where it is, and it cannot move in the place
where it is not. Therefore, no body can move. (Zeno, Paradoxes.)
10. Education implies teaching. Teaching implies knowledge. Knowledge is

truth. The truth is everywhere the same. Hence education should be everywhere the
same.
11. All humans have equal positive value. There is no morally relevant difference
between humans and some animals (such as mammals). Therefore, some animals have
equal positive worth with humans. Moral rights derive from the possession of value.
Since humans have rights (to life, not to be harmed, and so forth), animals have
those same rights.
12. True-false and multiple-choice tests have well-known limits. No matter how
carefully questions are worded, some ambiguities will remain. The format of the
questions prohibits in-depth testing of important analytic skills. Students can become
so "test savvy" that objective tests measure test-taking skill as much as subject-matter
content.
50
13. Planetary exploration has many virtues. It permits us to refine insights derived
from such Earth-bound sciences as meteorology, climatology, geology and biology, to
broaden their powers and improve their practical applications here on Earth. It
provides cautionary tales on the alternative fates of worlds. It is an aperture to future
high technologies important for life here on Earth. It provides an outlet for the
traditional human zest for exploration and discovery, our passion to find out, which has
been to a very large degree responsible for our success as a species. And it permits us,
for the first time in history, to approach with rigor, with a significant chance of finding
out the true answers, questions on the origins and destinies of worlds, the beginnings and
ends of life, and the possibilities of other beings who live in the skiesquestions as basic
to the human enterprise as thinking is, as natural as breathing.
14. Creation has no place in a science class because it is not science. Why not?
Because creationism cannot offer a scientific hypothesis that is capable of being
shown wrong. Creationism cannot describe a single possible experiment that could
elucidate the mechanics of creation. Creationism cannot point to a single prediction
that has turned out to be right, and supports the creationist case. Creationism cannot
offer a single instance of research that has followed the normal course of scientific
inquiry, namely, independent testing and verification by skeptical researchers.
15. Nonhuman animals lack linguistic capacity, and, for this reason, lack a mental
or psychological life. Thus, animals are not sentient. If so, of course, they cannot be
51
caused pain, appearances to the contrary. Hence, there can be no duty not to cause
them pain.
16. All students should study a foreign language. It improves mastery of English.
It helps to avoid cultural provincialism by expanding the cultural experience of students.
It is useful for travel and commerce. It makes it possible to do advance work in a
foreign language, including the study of the major literary works in that language.
Finally, the ability to read, speak, and think in a second language is a source of
pleasure and satisfaction even if this language is not used for travel and business and
even if it does not become a field of further study.
17. No belief is justified if it can be fully explained as the result of natural causes. If
materialism is true, then all beliefs can be explained as the result of irrational causes.
Therefore if materialism is true, then no belief is justified. If no belief is justified,
then the belief materialism is true is not justified. Therefore materialism should be
rejected. (Victor Reppert, C.S. Lewis Dangerous Idea (slightly adapted)).
18. A square must have exactly four corners, and a circle must have exactly zero
corners. So a round square must have exactly four corners and simultaneously have
52
exactly zero corners. But this is plainly impossible; hence there cannot be a round
square. (Erik J. Wielenberg, God and the Reach of Reason)
19. Lefty Grove was the greatest pitcher of all time, period. The one best indicator
of a pitcher's ability is his ERA, and Lefty grove led leagues in earned run average
nine times. No one else even approaches this record. The second-best indicator of a
pitcher's ability is his winning percentage. Guess what? Grove also led the league in
that more times than anyone else.
20. Here is a gentleman of a medical type, but with the air of a military man.
Clearly an army doctor, then. He has just come from the tropics, for his face is dark,
and that is not the natural tint of his skin, as his wrists are fair. He has undergone
hardship and sickness, as his haggard face says clearly. His left arm has been
injured. He holds it in a stiff and unnatural manner. Where in the tropics could an
English doctor have seen much hardship and get his arm wounded? (11) Clearly in
Afghanistan.
Exercise 7.2
1. Most Californians are friendly.

53
2. A need or complaint kept secret will never be addressed.
3. You shall not commit murder.
4. Human beings are the only rational animals on earth.
5. Don't worry about problems that can't be fixed. (Or: People don't worry about
problems that can't be fixed.)
6. Only persons that are citizens from birth may be president.
7. Having a lot of money is not the secret to true happiness.
8. In case I dont have another opportunity to wish you a nice holiday, I do so now.
9. All human beings are created with equal moral worth and equal basic rights. (This
paraphrase is debatable, obviously.)
10. Because a well-regulated citizen militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the individual citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
11. People make light of hardships theyve never personally experienced.
12. Regarding yesterday's e-mail from you, please note that there is no parking close to
the convention center, because the Jefferson Street Parking Garage is closed for repairs.
13. Common sense tells us that long-established governments should not be changed
without compelling reasons. That is why, as all experience shows, people tend to be
willing to endure political abuses, while those abuses are tolerable, rather than correct
them by abolishing the forms of government to which they are accustomed. But when a
long series of abuses and injustices, all with the same purpose, makes clear that the
government is attempting to establish a complete dictatorship, it is their right, it is their
duty, to throw off the government and provide new safeguards for their future security.
14. Because human reason is so weak and uncertain, some people should simply be told
what their duties are. Otherwise, they will make poor choices that may result in serious
harm.
15. A person commits the crime of sexual misconduct in the first degree if he or she (1)
has deviate sexual intercourse with another person of the same sex without that person's
consent, (2) purposely subjects another person to sexual contact without that person's
consent, or (3) purposely engages in conduct that would constitute nonconsensual sexual
contact with another person except that the touching occurs through that person's
clothing.
54
Exercise 7.3
I.
1. Missing premise: All Mazda Miatas are convertibles.

2. Missing conclusion: This Beetle is fuel efficient.
3. Missing premise: Blazers are not made by Ford.
4. Missing premise: This is not a Honda.
5. Missing premise: This is either a Camaro or a Firebird.
6. Missing premise: Minivans are roomy.
7. Missing premise (subconclusion): This is a Toyota.
8. Missing premise (subconclusion): This car doesn't get good gas mileage.
9. Missing conclusion: Either this is a Ford or it's a Mercury.
10. Missing premise: Some Fords are Rangers.
II.
1. Missing premise: Most people from Singapore speak English.
2. Missing conclusion: Whatever is dangerous should be banned.
3. Missing premise: Most blondes are dumb.
4. Missing premise (subconclusion): It's not cold. Missing premise (subconclusion): It's
not snowing. Missing conclusion: Uncle Fred will be coming over for dinner.
5. Missing premise: All Princeton graduates are smart. Missing premise: Anyone who is
smart should be able to solve this logic problem in the time allotted.
6. Missing premise: I'm not rich. Missing premise: Bill Gates is the Chairman of
Microsoft.
7. Missing premise: Today is Thursday. Missing premise: Zoe is not on the golf course.
8. Missing premise: Anything that comes to an end is meaningless.
9. Missing premise: If Bugsy became totally blind last year, then he didn't drive the
getaway car. Missing premise (subconclusion): Bugsy didn't drive the getaway car.
Missing premise (subconclusion): Sparky was not working for Bugsy.
10. Missing premise: Jay is a Hampton College student. Missing premise: Anyone who
voted the straight Republican ticket in the last election and has a large poster of
president George W. Bush in his dorm room is probably a Republican. Missing
premise: Most Republicans favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
55
Exercise 7.4
1.
1. Asking the question Will this be on the exam? indicates that your main
interest is in getting through the course with a good grade rather than in
learning what the instructor has to teach.
2. The question is insulting to the teacher who has worked hard to put you in
a position to appreciate the materialits intrinsic interest, its subtlety, its
complexity.
3. Thus, the question Will this be on the exam? infuriates many instructors,
and rightly so. ( from 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, you should not ask, nor be tempted to ask, the question: Will
this be on the exam? (from 3)
2.
1. Science seeks to explain only objective knowledge, knowledge that can be

acquired independently by different investigators if they follow a
prescribed course of observation or experiment.
2. Many human experiences and concerns[, including aesthetics and morality,]
are not objective.
3. Thus, many human experiences and concerns, including aesthetics and
morality, do not fall within the realm of science. (from 1 and 2)
4. Thus, science has nothing to say about aesthetics or morality. (from 3)
5. [Aesthetics and ethics are essential to the functioning of human society.]
6. Therefore, the functioning of human society clearly requires principles that
stem from some source other than science. (from 4 and 5)
3.
1. Education is required in the performance of our most basic public

responsibilities, even service in the armed forces.
2. It is the very foundation of good citizenship.
3. It is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in
preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust
normally to his environment.
4. Thus, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in
life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. (from 3)
5. Thus, today education is perhaps the most important function of state and
local governments. (from 1, 2, and 4)
6. [All fundamental benefits and opportunities offered by the state must be
made available to all on an equal basis.]
56
7. Therefore, a right to a public education is a right which must be made

available to all on equal terms. (from 5 and 6)
4.
1. Everyone needs thinking skills to meet the demands of career and

citizenship.
2. The highest of Abraham Maslows hierarchy of human needs, self-
actualization, is unachievable without the ability to think productively.
3. [Maslow correctly identifies self-actualization as the highest human need.]
4. Thus, everyone needs thinking skills to realize his or her potential as a
human being. (from 2 and 3)
5. Thus, to deny meaningful instruction in thinking to students below a certain
IQ of proficiency level is to deny them an essential part of their humanity.
(from 4)
6. The constitutional guarantees of freedom to speak, to choose ones own
religion, and so on, lose much of their meaning when only some
individuals are trained to evaluate and choose among competing views.
7. Therefore, thinking instruction in elementary and secondary education
should not be limited to the honors program. (from 1, 3, and 6)
5.
1. Providing all students in the twelfth grade with some kind of work-and-
study experience would help to overcome age segregation by allowing
students to observe adults at work and, in doing so, to learn what it is like
to work all day.
2. It would give students the opportunity to overcome stereotypes about
people who perform kinds of job different from their parents.
3. Students would see how education actually contributes to workaday life.
4. Thus, the jobs would enhance the meaning of school work. (from 4)
5. Young people would come to know better what they really like to do and
what they are good at doing.
6. Thus, they would develop clearer career aspirations. (from 5)
7. Most important, the work experience could be used to make classroom
discussions of social and economic institutions vivid and individually
relevant.
8. Therefore, consideration should be given to providing all students in the
twelfth grade with some kind of work-and-study experience. (from 1-4, 6,
7)
6.
1. Teachers already have enough time during the school day to instruct
children.
57
2. There are too many children that come home with either no adult there or
no adult with the ability to help them with their homework.
3. This places many children at a disadvantage compared to other children
who have their parents there to help them with their homework.
4. [Teachers should not give assignments that place some children at a
disadvantage compared to others.]
5. Children, like adults, should have the luxury of being able to come home
after a long day and have the rest of the day to themselves.
6. Therefore, teachers should assign no homework whatsoever. (from 1-5)
7.
1. All sorrow or pain is either something that is truly evil, or for something
that is apparently evil, but good in reality.
2. There is something worse than pain or sorrow for that which is truly evil,
namely, either not to reckon as evil that which is truly evil, or not to reject
it.
3. Thus, pain or sorrow for that which is truly evil cannot be the greatest evil.
(from 2)
4. There is something worse than sorrow or pain for that which is apparently
evil, but really good, namely, to be altogether separated from that which is
truly good.
5. Thus, pain or sorrow for what is apparently evil, but good in reality, cannot
be the greatest evil. (from 4)
6. Therefore, it is impossible for sorrow or pain to be mans greatest evil.
(from 1, 3, and 5)
8.
1. Urban, southern, and western school districts have disproportionately low

spending and high numbers of disadvantaged students.
2. Students in these areas constitute a growing proportion of U.S. students,
and future productivity will depend on learning how to provide better
education for them.
3. Recent research suggests that the achievement scores of minority and
disadvantaged students respond to additional well-targeted educational
expenditures and that significant score gains could occur.
4. Research also suggests that additional educational investment might be
recouped through lower future social expenditures and improved economic
productivity.
5. Such policies would reduce the achievement gap between racial or ethnic
and income groupsa source of continuing social and political divisions
and economic costs in society.
6. Improving the United States international standing requires lifting the
scores of these students.
58
7. Therefore, urban, southern, and western school districts should receive the
focus of educational policy attention. (from 1-6)
9.
1. A mail voting system requires so little time and effort on the part of voters
that it makes it easy to forget the value of voting.
2. A mail voting system allows voters who cast their ballots near the end of
the designated voting period to have a greater volume of information and
perhaps more accurate information than other voters do.
3. There is a serious potential for voter fraud in elections conducted by mail.
4. In a mail voting system, some ballots may get lost in the mail or arrive late.
5. Therefore, we should not rush to adopt a mail voting system. (from 1-4)
10.
1. The economic cost of legal drugs is two-and-a-half times greater than that
of illicit drugs.
2. [Thus, although legalizing drugs may take the profit motive away from the
street and clandestine manufacturers, these drugs will continue to be
manufactured and the economic costs of drugs will still be high. (from 1)]
3. Drug use not only impacts on the user, but has serious implications for
families, community, consumers and others.
4. Legalizing drugs would open the floodgates of access to these mood-
altering chemicals and would send a message that drugs are not harmful.
5. Thus, legalizing drugs would increase that risk that pilots, surgeons, and
school bus drivers would use drugs on the job. (from 4)
6. Thus, drug use is not a right and should never be. (from 3 and 5)
7. [It is ridiculous to say that child abuse laws should be repealed because
abuse of children is escalating.]
8. Saying drugs should be legalized because drug use is escalating is like
saying child abuse laws should be repealed because abuse of children is
escalating.
9. [Thus, it is ridiculous to say that drugs should be legalized because drug
use is escalating. (from 7-8)}
10. Common sense and state experiments with the decriminalization of
marijuana in the 1970s tell use that when there are fewer controls, there
will be more incidents.
11. Americas two favorite legal drugsalcohol and nicotinehave a
tremendous negative impact on the physiological, social, psychological,
economic and spiritual aspects of our lives.
12. Thus, if drugs were legalized, hospitalizations, crimes, car accidents,
addicted babies, industrial accidents, family break-ups, and other problems
afflicting our society would worsen significantly. (from 10-11)
13. [Therefore, drugs should not be legalized. (from 2, 6, 9, and 12)]
59
11.
1. There is no fair and objective way to measure effort in ones academic

work.
2. So, if professors based their grades on their perception of how much effort
their students have expended, the grades would be wildly unfair and the
professors would have to barricade themselves in their offices to ward off
all the pleaders and complainers. (from 1)
3. If professors gave out grades based on effort rather than on achievement,
students would be unable to assess their own learning.
4. If professors gave out grades based on effort rather than on achievement,
outside evaluators such as employers and graduate schools would not know
which students are likely to be top performers.
5. It is absolutely crucial to our nations health and prosperity that outside
evaluators be able to know which students are likely to be top performers.
6. Therefore, professors should base their grades primarily on achievement
rather than on effort. (from 2, 3-5)
Chapter 8: Evaluating Arguments and Truth Claims
Exercise 8.1
This exercise invariably generates good class discussions. Of course, many of the points
students make to support their beliefs are quite flimsy. A gentle Socratic approach works
best.
Exercise 8.2
I.
This exercise requires a little planning. It works best if you ask a student confederate to
take notes on how you looked the last time the class met--or, better still, show them a
video or photo of how you looked. If you don't usually end class early, or carry a
briefcase or backpack, you might wish to do so to enhance the effect.
II.
1. Not reasonable (It is, or should be, common knowledge that tigers are native to Asia.
Of course, some tigers do live in zoos in Africa.)
2. Reasonable (This, by now, is common knowledge.)

60
3. Not reasonable (This is a mere superstition.)
4. Not reasonable (The figure is too specific, and the claim is implausible on its face.)
5. Not reasonable (This is standard advertising puffery.)
6. Reasonable (credible source.)
7. Not reasonable (World War II ended more than 65 years ago.)
8. Not reasonable (The source is clearly biased, and the claim is inconsistent with
credible expert opinion.)
9. This claim is true, but even people who know a great deal about U.S. geography are
often surprised to hear it. Given background knowledge most of us share, it may
not be reasonable to accept the claim based simply on the say-so of a stranger on
the bus.
10. Reasonable (credible source)
11. Not reasonable (biased and unqualified source)
12. Not reasonable (Maybe a speed-reader could pull this off, but the claim is so
intrinsically implausible that it's more reasonable to believe the person is pulling
your leg.)
13. Not reasonable (The claim is inherently implausible given background knowledge
most of us share, and Falwell was presumably not an expert on hate crimes.)
14. Arguable, but the claim seems implausible given background knowledge most of us
share, and anti-gun control Web sites are not known for their objectivity and strict
fidelity to truth.
15. No commentary necessary.
Exercise 8.3
I.
1. The statement is self-refuting. If not statements are true, then the statement that no
statements are true isnt true either. So if the statement is true, its false, which is a
contradictory.
61
2. The statement is self-refuting. The statement All generalization are false is itself a
generalization, and hence false in its own terms.
3. Since, by definition, brothers are males and nieces are females, the statement is
necessarily false (assuming that, necessarily, no males are females).
4. The statement is self-refuting. If no beliefs are justified, then the belief that no beliefs
are justified isnt justified either. So fit he statement is true, its false, which is
contradictory. Looked at another way, if we should be absolute and total skeptics (i.e.,
hold that no beliefs are justified), we should be skeptical of the claim that we should
be absolute and total skeptics, and hence not be absolute and total skeptics. The
statement asserts that we should be absolute and total skeptics, yet implies that we
shouldnt, which is contradictory.
5. To say that an object is red all over is to say that its entire surface is red with no
admixture of another color. Hence, it is self-contradictory to assert that an object is
red all over and blue all over (at the same time.
6. Since kissing, as standardly understood, requires lips, and disembodied spirits have no
lips, it is impossible to be kissed by a disembodied spirit.
7. If the claim is that all children in Lake Wobegone are above average with respect to
other Lake Wobegone children, the claim is necessarily false, for something can be
above average in a comparison group only if some other things in the group are below
average. The statement is not necessarily false if it means that all children in Lake
Wobegone are above the national average.
8. Notice that it is not stated that Joseph killed his grandfather when his grandfather was
a child (or before his grandfather was able to beget children). If it did, the statement
would be necessarily false, because then Joseph would never have been born. The
deeper problem is with the very concept of time travel. Many philosophers argue that
it is logically impossible to travel to the past, for this implies that something both
happened and did not happen at a particular time in history. It might be said, in reply,
that travel to the past creates a new time line, with two distinct but logically
compatible historical sequences running parallel to each other. It isnt clear that this
notion of distinct time lines is coherent. But even if it is, this wouldnt involve travel
to the past, because the modified historical sequence has never occurred before, and
is therefore not in the past.
II.
1. What about polar bears, seals, walruses, and orcas, to name a few?
2. Keeping promises is important, but other things, such as saving lives, may sometimes
be more important.
62
3. What about if an urgent message is expected, e.g., regarding the birth of a child or a
medical emergency?
4. Plausible counterexamples include: Thoreau, Melville, Hawthorne, Poe, Fitzgerald,

Hemingway, and Faulkner, among others.
5. What about bananas, pears, limes, lemons, blueberries, kiwis, grapes, peaches,
cantaloupes, etc.?
6. In countries such as Guatemala, Iran, and Indonesia, the United States has supported,
and in some cases installed, corrupt authoritarian governments.
7. Dont forget good ol Ohio and Utah.
III.
1. Answers will vary for these exercises. Pertinent counterpoints to this argument
include: Not all colleges cost a fortune. Often students who were bored in high school
find that they enjoy college work. Though jobs like trucking and construction may be
relatively high-paying, the work may be more dangerous, less enjoyable, less
prestigious, and less secure than many jobs that require a college education. The
difference in earning power may also be greater than this individual supposes. Studies
show that college graduates make on average about 45% more than those who have
only a high school diploma.
2. Pertinent counterpoints: Average life expectancy for U.S. residents has increased from
age 60 in 1930 to over age 77 today. Moreover, a 65-year-old American today has a
50% chance of living to 82, and a 25% chance of living to 92. Thus, there is a good
possibility this person will need some retirement savingsand not just to pay for a
nursing home. Saving for retirementparticularly with widely available employer
matching fundsneed not cost an arm and a leg. A 22-year-old who saved just $75 a
week would have nearly $1.5 million in savings by age 65 (assuming an 8% average
annual rate of return). And of course in most cases unused retirement income can be
passed on to ones heirs.
3. Pertinent counterpoints: Gender discrimination may often take subtler forms today, but
there is ample evidence it still exists, both on a personal level and in the way
workforce norms are structured. Also, posing this simply as an issue of personal
choice ignore the reality of powerful societal pressures and expectations that
influence and often limit womens career choices.
4. Pertinent counterpoints: Although the meaning of the Second Amendment is hotly

debated, few would argue that the right to bear arms extends to military-style
weapons that are neither necessary for personal protection nor suitable for hunting.
63
Moreover, the risks of legalizing such weapons would seem to outweigh the gains.
The threat of foreign invasion or a breakdown of society are probably pretty remote.
By contrast, the risk that such weapons could fall into the hands of criminals or be
used in Columbine-type massacres, domestic disputes, and accidental shootings is
high.
5. Pertinent counterpoints: Tanning booths, like natural sunlight, emit ultraviolet

radiation that causes skin cancer and wrinkling. Studies show that rates of skin cancer
among women under 40 have tripled since the late 1970s, and that women who go to
tanning salons more than once a month are more than twice as likely to develop skin
cancer.
6. Pertinent counterpoints: Over 500,000 persons become naturalized U.S. citizens each
year. What would the economic cost be of requiring all able-bodied applicants (of
unspecified ages) to serve three years in the armed forces? How motivated would
these volunteers be? What percentage would be women? Would it deter skilled or
highly educated workers or students from coming to the U.S.?
7. Pertinent points that weaken or refute the argument include: The likelihood that
legalizing hard drugs would lead to greatly increased use and addiction rates, with all
the personal and societal costs this would entail: more overdoses, hospitalizations, car
accidents, industrial accidents, suicides, family break-ups, unemployable workers,
lower productivity, and so forth. Legalizing hard drugs would also likely make these
drugs more readily available to children and implicitly send a message that these drugs
arent all that harmful.
8. Pertinent counterpoints: Obviously, there may be significant upsides to marrying

career women, even assuming these research findings are sound. For many men,
marrying a career woman (however that is defined) may greatly increase their
standard of living and result in a happier, more simpatico marriage. It is relevant to
ask, too, what would happen if all men thought like this individual. Few womenor
men, we feel surewould be happy returning to the kind of Father Knows Best
world that would result.
9. Read the papers lately?
IV. Here are one reader's standardizations of these essays.
Stan Daniels, Helmet Laws Discriminate against Bikers
1. There is no discernible difference in motorcycle injury or fatality rates between states

that have mandatory helmet laws and those that don't.
2. Motorcycles represent just 2 percent of total vehicles in the United States and account
for less than 1 percent of all vehicle accidents.
64
3. Thus helmet laws are unnecessary. (from 1-2)
4. [If golfers are not required to wear helmets and hunters are not required to wear
bulletproof vests, then helmet laws are discriminatory.]
5. Golfers are not required to wear helmets and hunters are not required to wear
bulletproof vests.
6. Thus, helmet laws are discriminatory. (from 4-5)
7. Helmets are annoying to motorcycle riders who don't wish to wear them.
8. Helmet laws have no effect on anyone except motorcycle riders.
9. In a free society, responsible citizens should be allowed to choose what safety

measures best suit their particular needs.
10. In a recent local television poll, 82 percent of callers favored repealing Pennsylvania's
mandatory helmet law.
11. Therefore, helmet laws should be repealed. (from 3, 6, 7-10)
Leonard Pitts, Don't Use God's Law to Beat Up on Gays
1.God is mercy and love.
2. If I was given a heart and mind, God must have wanted me to use them.
3. The Bible says men ought not to judge.
4. When the scribes and Pharisees brought before Jesus a woman caught in the act of
adultery and demanded that she be stoned in accordance with God's law, Jesus
faced them and said the one who was without sin should cast the first stone.
5. Many passages in the Bible--for example, Leviticus 20:9 (mandating death for cursing
your parents), Leviticus 20:10 (mandating death for committing adultery), I
Corinthians 11:14 (condemning men who wear long hair), and I Corinthians
11:34-35 (condemning women who speak out in church)--are not, and should not,
be interpreted as still-binding divine law.
6. [Therefore, don't use God's law to beat up on gays. (from 1-5)]
Constance Hilliard, We're Spendthrift "Environmentalists"

65
1. Although eight out of 10 Americans regard themselves as environmentalists,

Americans comprise a mere 5 percent of the world's population and consume an
estimated 30 percent of its non-replenishable resources.
2. This unbridled consumerism is, as Roger Rosenblatt notes, "threatening the

ecological balance of our entire globe."
3. We suffer more stress-related illnesses now than ever before, while neglecting family
and intimate relationships in our time-consuming struggle to surpass the Joneses.
4. Our patterns of overconsumption reflect a dependency, a need for constantly

whispering promises of untold bliss that mere goods simply cannot keep.
5. Thus, the more single-mindedly we grab for the elusive, nirvana-like American
Dream, the more inexorable the slippage in our quality of life. (from 3-4)
6. Therefore, in this holiday season of frenzied shop-'til-you-drop spending, those of us

who call ourselves environmentalists should take time out to re-evaluate our personal
patterns of consumption. (from 1-2, 5)
USA Today, Campus Rules Overreach
1. Speech codes at [public] colleges that squelch all but the most bland and conformist
comments violate students constitutional rights to free expression.
2. A free exchange of ideas is supposed to be an integral part of the college experience.
3. Encouraging students to show sensitivity is laudable, but its better achieved through
persuasion than coercion of those who express disagreeable views.
4. According to the head of the U.S. Department of Educations Office of Civil Rights,
federal rules that ban sexual or racial harassment are intended to protect students
from discrimination, not regulate speech.
5. [Federal courts would agree with this officials interpretation of the law.]
6. [Thus, restrictive speech codes are not needed to comply with federal rules that ban
sexual or racial harassment. (from 4 and 5)]
7. Therefore, colleges should not seek to promote campus harmony by means of

restrictive speech codes. (from 1-3, 6)
Richard Delgado, Hate Cannot Be Tolerated
1. Federal courts have extended hostile environment case laws to schools that tolerate
66
a climate of hate for women and students of color.
2. [Thus, colleges may need to enact reasonable campus hate-speech codes to avoid
being sued for sexual or racial harassment. (from 1)]
3. In many cases, the usual and preferred response to hate speechmore speechis
either unavailable or too dangerous for the victim.
4. College counselors report that colleges where highly publicized incidents of hate
speech have taken place see a decline in minority enrollment.
5. [Declines in minority enrollment are undesirable for colleges.]
6. Society is becoming more diverse.
7. Courts, rightly, have struck down overly broad campus speech codes, but they are
likely to uphold reasonable, narrowly crafted rules that accommodate diversity
and hone in on the most offensive forms of speech.
8. Therefore, reasonable, narrowly crafted college hate-speech codes are to be

applauded, not feared. (from 2-7)
Sean Curtis, Why Cats Make Better Pets Than Dogs
1. Unlike dogs, cats need to be fed only once a day or once every few days.
2. Unlike dogs, cats dont need to be taken for walks on sub-zero mornings.
3. Unlike dogs, cats poop in one place.
4. So, dogs are higher maintenance than cats. (from 1-3)
5. Unlike dogs, cats dont bark.
6. Unlike dogs, cats dont jump on house guests and get their smell all over them.
7. [So, cats are less annoying than dogs.] (from 5-6)
8. Cats can be just as loving as dogs.
9. Therefore, cats make better pets than dogs. (from 4,7, and 8)
67
John Tierney, On Campus a Good Man Is Hard to Find
1. Affirmative action policies for boys in public colleges arent fair to the girls who are
rejected despite having higher grades and test scores than many of the boys who
are admitted.
2. Such policies arent fair to the boys if theyre not ready to keep up with their
classmates.
3. Government shouldnt favor one group over another.
4. Fewer boys than girls go to college, not because of any discrimination boys have
faced, but because boys are less fond of school than girls are and are more
inclined to skip college in favor of relatively well-paying jobs in fields like
construction and manufacturing.
5. [Thus, affirmative action for boys in public colleges cannot be justified as a remedy
for past discrimination. (from 4)]
6. Therefore, public colleges should not practice affirmative action for boys. (from 1-3,
5)
USA Today, Dont Blame the Burgers
1. Nine of 10 Americans say its wrong to hold food companies liable for obesity-related
health problems.
2. People who know or should know that eating copious orders of high-calorie fast foods
is unhealthy and may result in weight gain have only themselves to blame.
3. Advice to avoid such foods is hard to miss.
4. [Thus, it cannot plausibly be claimed that fast-food chains have deceived customers
about their products. (from 3)]
5. Its a stretch to suggest that McNuggets are as addictive or dangerous as nicotine.
6. [Thus, fat lawsuits, in contrast to lawsuits against Big Tobacco, cannot be justified
by claiming that the products sold are highly addictive or dangerous. (from 5)]
7. Ultimately, good eating habits are a matter of personal and parental responsibility.
8. Thus, it is not the place of the law to protect people who eat too much fast food from
their own excesses. (from 1-2, 4, 6, 7)
9. Food companies are responding to health findings and consumer demand by, for
68
example, posting nutritional information and phasing our Super Size programs.
10. Market forces and public education will work better than lawsuits and government
edicts in trimming the nations midsection.
11. Therefore, our nations obesity epidemic should not be addressed by fat lawsuits or
government edicts, but by market forces, public education, and an emphasis on
personal responsibility. (from 8-10)
USA Today, End the Death Penalty; Use Life Without Parole
1. Studies show that the death penalty dooms the innocent along with the guilty.
2. Studies show that capital punishment has a brutalizing effect that actually seems to
incite killers.
3. Studies show that the average murder rate in death-penalty states is substantially higher
than the average murder rate in non-death-penalty states.
4. Thus, the death penalty actually makes our society more violent and our persons less
secure. (from 1-3)
5. Studies show that the death penalty is applied in an arbitrary and racially
discriminatory way.
6. [If the death penalty is applied in an arbitrary and racially discriminatory way, then it
cannot be reconciled with the Constitution.]
7. Thus, the death penalty cannot be reconciled with the Constitution. (from 5-6)
8. The death penalty bogs down the courts.
9. The death penalty encourages legalistic manipulation.
10. Thus, the death penalty erodes the systems integrity. (from 9)
11. Thus, the death penalty is a failure as a tool of law, justice or public safety. (from 4,
7-8, 10)
12. Life without parole means what it says: There is no parole.
13. Life without parole is indisputably constitutional.
14. Life without parole is cheaper than the death penalty.
15. Life without parole is easier to win than the death penalty.
69
16. Life without parole may actually deter crime better than the death penalty.
17. Thus, we should abolish the death penalty and use life without parole instead. (from
11-16)
70
Chapter 9: A Little Categorical Logic
Exercise 9.1
1. No artichokes are fruits.
2. Some rectangles are squares.
3. All architects are professionals.
4. Some skateboarders are jazz fans.

71
5. Some tattoo artists are not archbishops.
6. All persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens.
7. No women are persons that have been U.S. presidents or vice-presidents.
8. Many dwarves are bachelors.

72
9. Not a single chess master is a rock star.
10. Some of the world's greatest soccer players are South Americans.
Exercise 9.2
1. All psychiatrists are doctors.
2. All persons that rush in are fools.
3. All blue jays are birds.
4. All Mustangs are Fords.
5. All persons that may use the restroom are employees (of this establishment).
6. All eligible for the honor society are persons with a 3.8 GPA or higher.
7. All players due to report on Monday are pitchers or catchers.
8. All persons allowed in the hall are persons with passes.
9. All persons eligible for the discount are senior citizens.
10. All persons that may use the Teacher's Lounge are teachers.
11. All friends of the devil are fires.

73
12. All sober dancers are lunatics.
13. All persons God loves are persons who dwelleth in wisdom.
14. All times when man is wholly human are times when he plays.
15. All persons I loathe are executioners.
Exercise 9.3
I.
1. All maples are trees.
2. Some roses are red.
9. Some bats are nocturnal animals.
4. All insects are animals.
5. Some desserts are foods that are not fattening.
6. All igloos are structures made of ice.
7. Some things that glitter are not gold things.
8. No cheaters are persons that prosper.
9. All clouds are things that have silver linings.
10. All times when you hit the ball are times when you swing the bat.
11. All events that are identical with World War II are events that began in 1939.
12. All cars are vehicles.
13. Some birds are animals that cannot fly.
14. Some Wessex College students are students that graduate in four years.
15. Some sheep are not white sheep.
16. All places are places where the grass is greener on the other side.
74
17. Some persons are not humans.
18. No mammals are reptiles.
19. Some polar bears are animals that live in Canada.
20. All humans are persons who prefer belief to the exercise of judgment.
21. Some persons are persons that have been ruined by success.
22. All liars are thieves.
23. All free persons are educated persons.
24. All persons that go to a psychiatrist are persons that should have their heads
examined.
25. Some persons are persons that live lives of quiet desperation.
26. No places are places more delightful to a person than that person's own home.
27. No things that are not worth doing are things that are worth doing well.
28. All persons that persevere in error are fools.
29. All lives that are worth living are examined lives.
30. All persons who say farewell when the road darkens are faithless persons.
31. All certainties are certainties that nothing is certain.
32. All (true) men are nonconformists.
33. All persons who have a why are persons who can bear with almost any how.
34. All villains dwelling in Denmark are arrant knaves.
35. Some men are rogues.
II.
Translation into standard-categorical form is the most difficult part of categorical logic
for most students. This exercise provides additional practice.
75
Exercise 9.4
I.
1. No barracuda are pets.

No sharks are barracuda.
So, no sharks are pets.
2. No farmers are city-dwellers.

All city-dwellers are urbanites.
So, no urbanites are farmers.
3. All curmudgeons are pessimists.

All pessimists are cynics.
So, some cynics are curmudgeons.
76
4. Some bankers are vegetarians.

No anarchists are bankers.
So, some anarchists are not vegetarians.
5. No beach bums are workaholics.

Some beach bums are rollerbladers.
So, some rollerbladers are not workaholics.
6. All violinists are musicians.

Some bookworms are violinists.
So, some bookworms are musicians.
77
7. No poker players are early-risers.

Some firefighters are early-risers.
So, some firefighters are not poker players.
8. Some dot.com millionaires are philanthropists.

All philanthropists are altruists.
So, some altruists are dot.com millionaires.
9. Some telemarketers are Methodists.

Some Methodists are Democrats.
So, some Democrats are telemarketers.
78
10. No Fords are Pontiacs.

All Escorts are Fords.
So, some Escorts are not Pontiacs.
11. No mockingbirds are cardinals.

Some cardinals are songbirds.
So, some songbirds are not mockingbirds.
12. All ecologists members are environmentalists.

All ecologists members are wilderness lovers.
So, all wilderness lovers are environmentalists.
79
13. No landlubbers are sailors.

Some sailors are not pirates.
So, some pirates are not landlubbers.
14. All cats are carnivores.

All tigers are cats.
So, all tigers are carnivores.
15. All sound arguments are valid arguments.

Some sound arguments are mathematical arguments.
So, some mathematical arguments are not valid arguments.
80
16. No fish are reptiles.

All trout are fish.
So, some trout are not reptiles.
17. Some idealists are not romantics.

All idealists are dreamers.
So, some dreamers are not romantics.
18. Some stockbrokers are couch potatoes.

All stockbrokers are e-traders.
So, some e-traders are couch potatoes.
81
19. Some butchers are not bakers.

No butchers are candlestick makers.
Therefore, some candlestick makers are not bakers.
20. All meteorologists are forecasters.

Some forecasters are psychics.
So, some psychics are meteorologists.
82
II.
1. No Nobel Prize winners are rock stars.

Some astrophysicists are Nobel Prize winners.
So, some astrophysicists are not rock stars.
2. Some philosophers are determinists.

All fatalists are determinists.
So, some fatalists are philosophers.
3. All maples are trees.

No bushes are trees.
83
So, no bushes are maples.
4. All liberals are big-spenders.

All persons identical to Senator Crumley are big-spenders.
So, all persons identical to Senator Crumley are liberals.
5. Some tarot-card readers are lottery players.

All tarot-readers are frauds.
So, some frauds are not lottery players.
6. All sonnets are poems.

No mathematical treatises are poems.
So, no mathematical treatises are sonnets.
84
7. Some lawyers are not golfers.

All lawyers are persons who have attended law school.
So, some persons who have attended law school are not golfers.
8. No cardsharks are psychics.

All cardsharks are poker players.
So, some poker players are not psychics.
9. No fish are mammals.

All pickerel are fish.
So, no pickerel are mammals.
85
10. All political scientists are social scientists.

Some political scientists are persons who favor campaign finance reform.
So, some persons who favor campaign finance reform are social scientists.
11. No egoists are humanitarians.

No humanitarians are sweatshop owners.
So, no sweatshop owners are egoists.
12. Some e-mail messages are not messages that are spell-checked.
Some interoffice memos are e-mail messages.
So, some interoffice memos are not messages that are spell-checked.
86
13. All tax-evaders are lawbreakers.

No lawbreakers are model citizens.
So, no model citizens are tax-evaders.
14. No trucks are cars.

Some Mazdas are trucks.
So, some Mazdas are not cars.
15. All dogs are furry animals.

All animals identical to Lassie are dogs.
So, all animals identical to Lassie are furry animals.
87
16. No harmless acts are immoral acts.

Some lies are not harmless acts.
So, some lies are not immoral acts.
17. All mystics are religious persons.

Some religious persons are not greedy persons.
So, some mystics are not greedy persons.
18. All persons who drink and drive are irresponsible persons.
Some persons who talk on a car phone are not irresponsible persons.
So, some persons who talk on a car phone are not persons who drink and drive.
88
19. All persons who eat pizza every night are persons at risk for heart disease.
Some persons who are at risk for heart disease are cab drivers.
So, some cab drivers are persons who eat pizza every night.
20. All persons identical to Joey are kindergarteners.

All children who finger paint in school are persons who are kindergarteners.
So, all persons identical to Joey are children who finger paint in school.
89
Chapter 10: A Little Propositional Logic
Exercise 10.1
I.
1. p
2. p & q
3. p & q
4. p & q
5. p & q
6. p & q
7. p & q
8. p & q
9. p & q
10. p & q
II.
1. T
2. F
3. F
4. T
5. F
6. T
7. F
8. F
9. T
10. F
III.
1. T
2. F
3. F
4. T
5. F
6. F
7. F
8. T
9. F
10. T
90
Exercise 10.2
I.
1.
2.
3.
91
4.
5.
II.
1.
p
q
... p & q
92
2.
p
.
.. p & q
3.
p
.
.. q
Exercise 10.3
I.
1. F
2. T
3. T
4. F
5. F
6. T
7. F
8. F
9. T
10. T
93
II. Students find this exercise helpful. It makes clear to them that the symbols and
variables are meant to stand for thoughts and statements.
III.
1. p & ~q
2. ~p & ~q
3. ~ (p & q)
4. ~p & q
5. ~ (p & q)
6. ~p & ~q
7. p & ~q
8. ~ (p & q)
9. ~p & q
10. ~ (p & q)
IV.
1.
2.
94
3.
4.
5.
V.
95
1.
~p & ~q
... ~ (p & q)
2.
~(p & q)
... ~ q
3.
~(p & q)
~p
... ~q
4.
96
~ (p & q)
p
.
. . ~q
5.
~ (p & q)
... ~p & ~ q
Exercise 10.4
I.
1. T
2. F
3. F
4. F
5. T
6. F
7. T
8. T
9. F
10. T
97
III.
1. (c & d) & ~k
2. c & d & h
3. ~(c & d & h)
4. (t & b) & ~ w
5. ~((t & b) & ~w)
IV.
1.
2.
98
3.
4.
5.
99
V.
1.
f&t
~s
... ~(f & s)
2.
f&p
~r
.
. . ~(p & r)
100
3.
~ (f & b)
~g
... ~ f & ~ g
4.
s & ~e
~(e & t)
... s & t
101
5.
~(f & j)
~c
... ~j & ~c
Exercise 10.5
I.
1. T
2. T
3. F
4. T
5. T
6. T
7. T
8. T
9. T
10. F
III.
1. d v r
2. (d v r) & ~s
3. ~ (d v r)
4. w v d
5. w v ~d
6. (w v ~ d) & ~ g
102
7. p v f
8. ~(e v c)
9. (s v a) & ~ (s & a)
10. ~ (t v a) & w
IV.
1.
2.
(Because the premises are inconsistent there are no cases in which the premises are both
true and hence no cases in which the premises are both true and the conclusion is false.
Because this example requires some explanation it may be better suited for the classroom
than for homework.)
103
3.
4.
5.
104
V.
1.
dvr
~r
... d
2.
(d v r) & ~s
... ~(s v d)
105
3.
~ (e v c)
c
... ~e
(Because the premises are inconsistent there are no cases in which the premises are both
true and hence no cases in which the premises are both true and the conclusion is false.
Because this example requires some explanation it may be better suited for the classroom
than for homework.)
4.
sva
~ (s & a)
a
... s
106
5.
~ (t v a)
avw
... ~t
Exercise 10.6
I.
1. F
2. T
3. F
4. T
5. T
6. T
7. F
8. T
9. T
10. T
III.
1. b e
2. ~(h t)
3. ~b ~e
4. h f
5. ~b ~h
6. e c
7. ~c ~e
107
8. ~g ~s
9. ~(~g ~s)
10. (s g) (~s p)
IV.
1.
2.
(There are no cases in which the premises are both true and hence no cases in which the
premises are both true and the conclusion is false. Because this example requires some
explanation it may be better suited for the classroom than for homework.)
3.
108
4.
5.
109
V.
1.
be
~e
... ~b
2.
~b ~h
b
... h
3.
ec
~e
... ~c
110
4.
gs
. . ~g ~ s
.
5.
sg
g&t
... s
111
Chapter 11: Inductive Reasoning
Exercise 11.1
1. Strong.
2. Weak.
3. Weak.
4. Strong.
5. Weak.
6. Weak.
7. Strong.
8. Strong.
9. Strong.
10. Weak.
Exercise 11.2
I.
1. Strong. Is the sample large enough? Yes. Is the sample representative? Yes.
2. Strong. Is the sample large enough? Yes, probably. Is the sample representative? Yes,
probably.
3. Weak. Is the sample large enough? Yes. Is the sample representative? No, women are
excluded.
4. Weak. Is the sample large enough? Yes. Is the sample representative? No, a far higher
percentage of Americans attend college than is typical in other countries.
5. Weak. Is the sample large enough? Yes. Is the sample representative? Possibly not.
II.
1. Is the sample large enough? No, just three cities are considered. Is the sample
representative? No, not necessarily; for example, at least two of the cities have problems
with illegal immigration which may add to the crime problem.
2. Is the sample large enough? Yes. Is the sample representative? No, not necessarily,
since people may live considerably longer in the future.
3. Is the sample large enough? Yes. Is the sample representative? No, all the frogs are
from one pond in a precarious location.
4. Is the sample large enough? Possibly, depending on the size of the faculty. Is the
sample representative? No, they are all from one department; other departments may
grant tenure to far fewer applicants..
112
5. Is the sample large enough? No, one hundred people is not enough to support this
conclusion. Is the sample representative? No, definitely not. They are all children.
Teenagers and adults may evaluate the movie differently.
Exercise 11.3
This exercise works particularly well with cooperative learning strategies. Try assigning
students to groups either in class or for homework, and have them present their plans
for the poll.
Exercise 11.4
I.
1. c) Strong and reliable.

2. b) Strong but unreliable.
3. a) Weak.
5. a) Weak.
6. b) Strong but unreliable.
8. a) Weak.
9. a) Weak.
II. Students find this exercise helpful. Constructing their own arguments to fit the
specifications gives them a deeper understanding of the concepts involved.
Exercise 11.5
This exercise provides a good opportunity for students to test their logical instincts.
Discussing their answers will help clarify the main issues involved.
Exercise 11.6
1. 2 The skills involved are very different.

2. 2 There are too many dissimilarities and life doesnt really have well-defined rules the
way chess does.
3. 6 There are a too many dissimilarities.
113
4. 5 There are big differences between a small family budget and a large city budget.
5. 9 Changing the oil in a car is a pretty straightforward procedure and a transferable
skill, especially considering that Fords and Chevys are both American made cars.
6. 3 Changing a cars oil is far less complicated than changing its brakes. Also Chevys
and BMWs are very different kinds of cars.
7. 7 The argument does not claim very much, and considering Rodriguezss athletic
ability, love for the game, and practice, it isnt unreasonable to claim that he could
learn to play fairly well.
8. 9 The argument draws on some important similarities and modestly claims that its
conclusion is probably true.
9. 5 The conclusion may be true but there are important dissimilarities between cars and
colleges.
10. 3 The conclusion is too strong in claiming that he must be "just like" the character.
There are a couple of important similarities but not enough to fully support the
conclusion.
Exercise 11.7
1. Obviously, the topic of abortion is controversial, and many students have a difficult
time being objective about the argument from analogy.
2. This exercise works best as a homework assignment. Few students can think on their
feet well enough to construct a good analogy on the spot.
3. For the same reason as above, this exercise works best as a homework assignment.
Exercise 11.8
I.
1. Strong, but students will want to argue it is weak.
2. Weak. There are significant differences between animals and human beings. To
strengthen the argument we would need to add evidence that human beings do not have to
eat meat to survive whereas some animals do. We might also add a premise about the fact
that human beings can think rationally and decide on what to eat in a way that animals
cannot.
3. Strong.
4. Weak. In this case there is not much that could be added to strengthen the argument.
114
II.
1.
A. Strengthen.
B. Strengthen.
C. Weaken.
D. Strengthen.
2.
A. Strengthen.
B. Weaken.
C. Strengthen.
D. Strengthen.
3.
A. Weaken.
B. Strengthen.
C. Weaken.
D. Strengthen.
4.
A. Strengthen.
B. Weaken.
C. Weaken.
D. Strengthen.
5.
A. Strengthen.
B. Weaken.
C. Weaken.
D. Strengthen.
115
Exercise 11.9
1. Bob is a good employer because he knows the concerns of his employees and treats
them fairly, runs a profitable business, and knows when and how to delegate
authority.
2. The mayor of a small town must similarly know the concerns of his constituents,
respond to them fairly, keep an eye on the bottom line, and know when and how
to delegate authority.
3. So, Bob would be a good mayor of his small town.
Strong, though not a perfect argument.
2.
1. Mr. Sanders is a good football coach because he knows the game and inspires his
players.
2. Good teachers know their subject matter and inspire their students.
3. So, Mr. Sanders would be a good health teacher.
Weak. Mr. Sanders may or may not know the subject matter necessary for teaching a
health class. Coaches and teachers inspire students in related yet different ways. The
skills involved in communicating as a teacher and as a coach are related but different.
3.
1. Jezebel lives a life based on lies and deceit, cheating on her husband and pretending to
be someone she is not.
2. A good actress must pretend she is someone is not.
3. So, Jezebel would be a good actress.
Weak. There are two many dissimilarities. Deceiving others and yourself about who you
are and what you are doing is qualitatively different from assuming the role of another on
stage or screen.
4.
1. Brad Pitt is a good actor, commanding attention on screen and often making
passionate socially conscious films.
2. The president must command attention and have a passionate social conscience.
3. So, Brad Pitt would be a good president.
Weak. Needless to say, the analogy is strained. The similarities are trivial and slight, while
there are innumerable relevant dissimilarities.
116
5.
1. Sam was a bad Marine, taking advantage of his authority, showing little care or
concern for others, shrinking from conflict, and exercising bad judgment.
2. A good police officer must not abuse his authority, care for others, rise to the situation
in conflict, and exercise good judgment.
3. So, Sam will be a bad police officer.
Strong, though not a perfect argument.
Exercise 11.10
I.
1. Bad evidence. Being old does not cause one to be uncomfortable with computers, but
there is a correlation between being old and being uncomfortable with computers.
2. Good evidence.
3. Bad evidence. Being Caucasian does not cause one to have skill in playing hockey.
There is, however, a correlation tied to socioeconomic factors.
4. Good evidence that studying causes higher grades.
5. Bad evidence. It is not the absence of nicotine ingestion that causes weight gain. Rather
there is a correlation between increased caloric intake and smoke cessation.
6. Bad evidence for a causal relationship. Likely explained as a correlation between
political affiliation and beliefs regarding the bill.
7. Good evidence for a causal relationship between a combination of decreased caloric
intake and increased exercise resulting in weight loss.
8. Good evidence that the conditions they endured on the camping trip caused them to
catch a cold.
9. Bad evidence. Being tall does not cause a person to play basketball; nor does playing
basketball cause a person to grow tall.
10. Good but not perfect evidence.
II.
1. What else did he eat? Did anyone else become sick from eating it?
2. Does the launch disturb the atmosphere? Do they have nasty weather anywhere else?
3. What percentage of habitual tobacco chewers get mouth cancer? What is the
percentage of mouth cancer in the general public? Do tobacco chewers tend to do
anything else that might result in mouth cancer?
4. The percentage of women with breast implants who have connective tissue disease; the
percentage of women in the general public who have connective tissue disease; the
117
percentage of women with silicon breast implants who have connective tissue disease; the
percentage of women with saline breast implants who have connective tissue disease.
5. The actual percentage of vegetable juice drinkers who maintain good health; how often
do they actually get sick; what other health promoting practices, habits, or activities are
common to them; quantity of vegetable juice they drink daily.
6. Need a definition of acts of violence; need actual percentages of children who watch
professional wrestling and commit acts of violence versus those who do not watch
professional wrestling. What else is characteristic of children who commit acts of
violence?
7. Why do students choose to sit in the front row?
8. A decrease in high blood pressure of what percent is found when there is decrease in
salt intake of what percent? Do people who decrease their salt intake in order to reduce
high blood pressure do anything else that might result in a decrease in high blood
pressure?
9. What is the percentage of cancer in communities with high dioxin content in their soil?
What is the percentage of cancer in the general public? Is there anything else unusual
about communities that have a high dioxin content in their soil?
10. How do we define a healthy heart? Just red wine, or other alcoholic beverages?
Exercise 11.11
Note: These are tough. Students will say that some examples are ambiguous. Use this as
an opportunity to discuss a context in which the example would not be ambiguous. Such
discussion will help further clarify the different types of probability.
1. Relative frequency.
2. A priori.
3. Relative frequency.
4. Epistemic.
5. Epistemic.
6. A priori.
7. Epistemic.
9. Epistemic.
10. A priori.
Exercise 11.12
I.
1. Negative.
2. Neutral.
3. Positive.
4. Negative.
5. Negative.
118
II. This exercise is a good opportunity for discussion, which will reveal that not everyone
places the same relative value on the same bets.
III. This, too, is a good opportunity for discussion. Some students come up with good
and relevant examples, which will clarify the concept for other students.
119
Chapter 12: Finding, Evaluating and Using Sources
Exercise 12.1
The exercise can be very enjoyable. It works best if it is completed as described in the
textin groups of four or, if necessary, three. Encourage the group to record a consensus
answer for each item. If the group cannot agree on an answer, the students should leave
the item blank.
After the students have completed their group discussions (which can take up to thirty
minutes), spend some time discussing in general terms how individuals participate in
group decisions and the dynamics you may have observed. When I do this exercise in
class, I eavesdrop around the room and listen to how students debate the questions. After
the discussions have ended I ask students to think about how they contributed to the
discussion: Do they defer to others who seem more knowledgeable or more aggressive?
How do they act when they know (or believe) they are right? Do they speak up to correct
what they know is wrong? Did they go along with the majority decision? What did they
do when they had only a vague notion they were right but no hard evidence? Did they
trust their instincts? Were they easily swayed? Do they retreat to a who cares? or
whatever position? And so forth. I dont ask the students to announce their behavior to
the class, just to think about their behavior in groups.
Ask them to think about how the group decided on answers. Was it majority rule? Did
they turn to the groups experts on issues involving sports or religion or history? Did
they guess at the answers or debate them? What evidence did they use to support their
answers? Did they even ask for any evidence? If everyone seemed to be in agreement on
a item, did anyone say, Are we sure? Lets discuss this. How closely did they examine
the items, especially in the true/false section? Did they take the statement apart, looking
for one word that could make the statement false? (Because many students have taken
true/false tests designed to trick them, students often do examine the language very
carefully.) How often did the group simply guess?
Finally, ask them to think about their intellectual curiosity. If I dismissed them at that
moment, I ask, would they look up any of the answers? Would they ask me the answers
on the way out or in the next class? (I dont wait for an answer to those questions because
Im afraid to know. I only ask them to think about their curiosity, the lack of it, and the
possible reasons for either.)
Then move on the answers. The answer to most of the statements in Part I is an
unqualified false, although many students will record true for all or almost all items.
Explanations are provided below. Most of the answers students will give in Part II are
predictable, but many of those answers will be incorrect or at least arguable. In some
casesin both Parts I and II, you should be ready for some debate, disagreement and
downright incredulity among the students. They will also accuse you (and us) of splitting
hairs, of being too strict, or of tricking them. Its a good time to discuss precision and
accuracy.
120
But, most important, the exercise shows that much of what we have often assumed to be
true is not true. I make sure my students understand that the exercise is not intended to
undermine their educations or demonstrate the weaknesses of their high school and
elementary teachers, but that the exercise shows how we all believe things that may not
be true. The purpose of the exercise is to encourage students to do research even into
matters they feel are most obvious or conventional. In short, the aim of the exercise is to
show students that they must be willing to look it up.
In addition to Britannica Online, The following sources of information were used to

create the true/false test:
Adams, Cecil. The Straight Dope: Answers to the Questions that Torment
Everyone! New York: Ballantine, 1984.
Burnam, Tom. The Dictionary of Misinformation. New York: Harper, 1986.
Cerf, Christopher and Victor Navasky. The Experts Speak: The Definitive
Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation. Expanded and updated
edition. New York: Villard, 1998.
I.
1. Sort of. The Merrimac was a northern ship refitted by the South as an ironclad.
The name was changed to the Virginia, so, strictly speaking, the first battle took
place between the Virginia and the Monitor.
2. Yankee Doodle was most likely a British song that poked fun at the bumpkin
colonists, who most likely coopted the tune.
3. The Star Spangled Banner was written during the War of 1812. The following is
from the online version of Encyclopedia Britannica:
Francis Scott Key, a lawyer, wrote the lyrics after watching the British
attack Fort McHenry, Maryland, in 1814, during the War of 1812. The
melody was taken from "To Anacreon in Heaven," a drinking song of the
Anacreontic Society (of London) that was written by the British composer
John Stafford Smith. Key's words were first published in a broadside in
1814 under the title "Defence of Fort M'Henry." The song's title was
changed when it appeared in sheet-music form later the same year. After a
century of general use, the four-stanza song was officially adopted as the
national anthem by act of Congress in 1931.
4. Ferdinand Magellan died before the journey was completed. His first-mate, Juan
Sebastian del Cano, finished the voyage and should be considered the first person
to circumnavigate the globe.
121
5. Charles Lindbergh was the first person to fly solo across the Atlantic.
6. The Declaration of Independence was dated July 4, 1776, but signing did not take
place that day.
7. Although students insist that this is true, many writers violate this rule. Some
students will want to argue that, okay, then, its still true that you should never .
. . . even though good writers do it.
8. The United States fought China in the Boxer Rebellion, in Korea, and indirectly
in Vietnam.
9. While tenure protects the academic freedom of teachers, it does not protect them
in cases of moral turpitude or financial exigency.
10. If a widowers children are past age eighteen, he can join the priesthood. If a
married Episcopalian priest converts to Catholicism, he can become a married
Catholic priest. There are indeed married Catholic priests.
11. Victor Frankenstein, the scientist, never named his creature.
12. It began simply as an abbreviation. The Greek letter Chi (X) is short for Christ.
13. The Emancipation Proclamation (January 1, 1863) freed the slaves held in states
then in rebellion; it specifically excepted states under the control of the Union
army. Also, it proclaimed the slaves free, but it did not free them in the sense that
they could walk away from their masters. (Students like to argue the trickiness
of this question. I think these arguments are healthy and productive since students
show their willingness to challenge the statement and me, and because it
demonstrates the need to look very closely at language, sentence structure and
history.)
14. Fulton built a steamboat, which was later named the Clermont, but its hard to
argue that he invented it (you could discuss with your students the various
definitions of invent, and for that matter discover). Almost a quarter-century
before Fultons ship sailed in the United States, a Frenchman, Marquis Claude de
Jouffroy dAbbans tested a model of a steamboat. In America, John Fitch should
be credited for building the first functioning steamboat (1786). Fultons, however,
was the first efficient and commercially successful steamboat
15. They were all hanged, not burned. One warlock was pressed to death with
stones.
16. Franklin discovered that lightning was electrical and could be conducted by metal.
Franklin is credited for inventing the lightening rod.
122
17. A common misconception is that the Immaculate Conception refers to Christs

virgin birth. It refers instead to Marys having been conceived immaculately, in
other words, untainted by original sin. Some students will show little concern for
an item like this one. I sometimes use the occasion to ask whether theres any
value in knowing about religious doctrine and beliefs that may not be our own.
18. A old saying based on an old falsehood.
II.
1. Although most of us associate them with Scotland and Ireland, bagpipes have
been around for almost two thousand years in other parts of the world including
western Asia. This question presents a good opportunity to discuss the meaning of
words like invent and discover and to talk about how popular notions
regarding the origin of inventions or ideas might need to be researched before we
accept them as factual. Perhaps a student will volunteer to find out where
bagpipes come from. And by the way, some purists insist that there are no
bagpipes; its bagpipe, singular.
2. While some people believe that circumstantial evidence means evidence that is
weak or unreliable, it is actually all evidence in a court case other than eyewitness
testimony. All lab reports, fingerprint evidence, videotape, and so forth are
circumstantial evidence, which is often the best evidence available.
3. In 1913, the major league baseball team from Brooklyn, New York, changed its
name to the Dodgers after the custom of running quickly across the street to avoid
oncoming trolley cars (trolley dodgers). The team moved to Los Angeles in 1958.
4. Many students educated in the United States will say Elias Howe. Some will say
Isaac Merrit Singer. From Britannica Online:
An early sewing machine was designed and manufactured by Barthlemy

Thimonnier of France in 1841 to mass-produce uniforms for the French
Army, but rioting tailors destroyed the machines. Thimonnier's design, in
any event, merely mechanized the hand-sewing operation; a decisive
improvement was embodied in a sewing machine built by Walter Hunt of
New York City in about 1832-34 but never patented, and independently by
Elias Howe of Spencer, Mass., and patented in 1846. In both machines a
curved eye-pointed needle moved in an arc as it carried the thread through
the fabric, on the other side of which it interlocked with a second thread
carried by a shuttle running back and forth on a track. Howe's highly
successful machine was widely copied, leading to extensive patent
litigation and ultimately to a patent pool that included the design of Isaac
Merrit Singer, the largest manufacturer. In 1860 more than 110,000 sewing
machines were produced in the United States alone.
123
5. Although once a contraction for mistress, that usage no longer makes sense
since, for example, Laura Bush is not Mistress Bush. As a title of courtesy for an
unmarried woman, the term Mrs. is, strictly speaking, short for nothing.
6. Truman had no middle name, per se, and so the letter S is his middle name.
His full name can be written Harry S. Truman or Harry S Truman (no period).
7. Many students will say that Ford invented the car; some will say the assembly
line. He invented neither.
8. Almost everyone will say, with good reason, Thomas Edison. Heres Britannica
on the topic:
In 1801 Sir Humphrey Davy demonstrated the incandescence of platinum

strips heated in the open air by electricity; but the strips did not last long.
Frederick de Moleyns of England was granted the first patent for an
incandescent lamp in 1841; he used powdered charcoal heated between
two platinum wires.
The first practical incandescent lamps became possible after the
invention of good vacuum pumps. The Englishman Sir Joseph Wilson
Swan in 1878 and the American inventor Thomas Alva Edison in the
following year independently produced lamps with carbon filaments in
evacuated glass bulbs. Edison has received the major credit because of his
development of the power lines and other equipment needed to establish
the incandescent lamp in a practical lighting system. (See filament lamp.)
The term practical, of course, changes everything. But it is interesting that even the
first practical incandescent bulb is not credited to Edison alone.
9. Alexander Graham Bell will occur to most students. Britannica:
The word telephone, from the Greek roots tele, "far," and phone, "sound,"
was applied as early as the late 17th century to the string telephone
familiar to children and was later used to refer to the megaphone and the
speaking tube; but in modern usage it refers solely to electrical devices
derived from the inventions of Alexander Graham Bell and others. The
U.S. patent granted to Bell in March 1876 (No. 174,465) for the
development of a device to transmit speech sounds over electric wires is
often said to be the most valuable ever issued. The general concepts
involved in the invention of the telephone--of speech sounds as a complex
of vibrations in air that is transferrable to solid bodies and of the
convertibility of those vibrations to electrical impulses in conducting
metals--had by then been understood for decades. Bell was but one of a
number of workers racing to pull them together into a practical instrument
for the transmission of speech.
124
What might a thorough research about Bells invention reveal? I use these previous
two inventionslight bulb and telephoneto introduce a short discussion on how
facts in our education are usually the result of where we are educated. Most
students have no trouble admitting that an education in France or Sweden includes
very different facts.
10. The Morse code distress signal, three dots followed by three dashes followed by
three dots, corresponds to the letters SOS, but those letters were not intended to
stand for anything. Many people believe, however, that SOS means Save Our
Ship, or Save Our Souls.
11. The line is from Lincolns Gettysburg Address, but it is quoted inaccurately:
forefathers is simply fathers in the address.
12. The fun in this item is in listening to students debate the issue. Students have
argued that since Brazil is in the southern hemisphere, the sun must rise in the
west. The answer is east in both cases, obviously, although Brazil has no west
coast. The word but throws readers off, and some complain that the sentence is
unfairly tricky. They are probably right, but this is a good time to talk about what
happens when faced with tricky questions about what we know to be true.
One final word of caution: Try to avoid at all costs giving the impression in this exercise
that individual students or young people in general are unintelligent. I repeat several
times during the hour that the exercise only points out how unreliable may be our
conventional wisdom, memories, educations, and assumptions. The point again: be
willing to look it up.
Exercise 12.2
I. After students bring in their facts, I collect them and select forty or so facts, matters of
facts and non-facts to share with the class. We discuss why an apparent fact cannot or
should not be considered true. I also hand out a few opinions to show the difference
between fact and non-fact.
II.
1. Facts: Cal Thomas worked for NBC News in the late 1960s. Robert Kitner was at
one time president of NBC, as was Sylvester Weaver, who went by the name of
Pat. Matters of fact: Stories were selected based on the audience they would
attract (this could be verified with interviews, for example, or with corporate
correspondence). Whether or not ratings for news started to matter, as they did
for entertainment could be verified in similar ways, though some words, such as
mattered would need to be clarified. The decline in the ratings could easily be
documented. But what about the claim that the respect most people once had for
the journalism profession also declined? Could that be documented through
125
surveys or opinions polls? Could such a statement be shown to be factual?
2. Book and movie reviews are a good source of writing that contains entwined facts
and opinions, and, as one might expect, far more opinion than fact. These three
reviews of The Dark Knight contain very little factual information and much
critical commentary. Facts include: The film was made by Warner Bros, it was
directed and co-written by Christopher Nolan, and it was Heath Ledgers last
performance. Students might want to argue whether the claim that The Dark
Knight is the most anticipated movie of the year is a verifiable fact.
3. There are several claims presented as factual in Ward Churchills response to the
question of whether the World Trade Center was an acceptable or legitimate
target on Sept. 11, 2001. Students might be asked to research the following
statements to determine whether or not they are true: 1) [T]he C.I.A., the
Defense Department, and other parts of the U.S. military intelligence
infrastructure, had situated offices within the World Trade Center. 2) Saddam
Hussein had situated elements of his command and control infrastructure within
otherwise civilian occupied facilities. 3) The Donald Rumsfelds of the world,
the Norman Schwartzkopfs, and the Colin Powells of the worldjustified their
bombing of civilian facilities [in Baghdad] in order to eliminate the parts of the
command and control infrastructure that were situated there. Therefore, under
U.S. rules, Churchill argues, the World Trade Center was an acceptable target.
Besides attempting to verify Churchills claims, students might also wish to
examine his reasoning in the excerpted passage (does the passage illustrate the
two-wrongs fallacy, or example? Does it contain a weak analogy?) Additionally,
as an exercise in paraphrasing and summarizing, students might be encouraged to
read Ward Churchills essay People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting
Chickens, a very difficult essay to paraphrase in absolutely neutral and objective
terms.
4. Facts: Harvard is the oldest institution of higher learning in America; thirty-three

Nobel prize winners graduated from Harvard; Bill Gates developed the programming
language BASIC; Radcliffe was founded in 1879 and started admitting men in 1973;
Martin Luther King Jr. received a doctorate in theology from Boston University, and so
forth. Some statements, however, are not immediately verifiable. For example, it would
be very difficult to document the claim that MIT is generally acknowledged to be the
nations top school for science and engineering. The imprecise languagegenerally
acknowledgedmakes the statement more opinion than verifiable fact. Qualifying the
statement might make it closer to being verifiable: MIT is regarded among college
presidents as the nations best school for engineering.
5. Students might want to discuss, first, Coulters style, which is marked by a tendency to
exaggerate the facts and needle her opponents. The imprecision and informality of her
language in this excerpt make the job of pinning down facts nearly impossible.
Nonetheless, her remarks provide an opportunity to discuss the sometimes subtle ways in
which opinion is presented as fact. The following statements could be analyzed and
126
evaluated: [T]he price of college tuitionis not determined by the quality of the
product. CNN reports [in 2006] that college tuition has risen an astonishing 40 percent
since 2000. [T]he solution [proposed by CNN?] is for the government to subsidize
college professors salaries even more than it already does. Liberals think hardworking
taxpayers who cant afford gas should pay more in taxes. Liberals think that America
is the worst country on Earth and that the American bond traders who were murdered on
9/11 deserved it. Ward Churchill makes $120,000 a year [2006] as a department head
at the University of Colorado. The only part of his resume that has not already been
proved false is that he majored in communications and graphic arts.
Exercise 12.3
1. Rush Limbaugh is a radio talk show host and author who espouses a conservative
point of view. His claim that condoms fail around seventeen percent of the time
should be cautiously considered and verified with more reliable sources. One key
to Limbaughs bias is his characterization of liberals in the first sentence of the
quoted item. (Could he be charged here with a straw man fallacy?)
2. The author of this item from ratemyprofessors.com makes some effort to back up
his or her evaluation with reasons, but the tone and generalizations suggest that
the authors purpose is retaliatory. Students might want to discuss the reliability
of anonymous ratings sites such as ratemyprofessors.com. Some students will
suggest that a single evaluation has more credence if its comments are repeated in
evaluations written by other students. (To start a good discussion, ask the
students how useful or ethical a site called ratemystudents.com would be.)
3. Students seeking information on the author will discover that Dr. Robert A.
Hatcher is Professor of Gynecology and Obstetrics at Emory University School of
Medicine in Atlanta. His handbook on contraceptive technology is now in its 18th
edition. Students might wish to discuss whether the evidence from 1998, quoted
in the item, is still reliable but it is hard to deny that the source of this information
is highly reliable.
4. The billboards proclaiming these facts are sponsored by someone who is

attempting to reduce the level of immigration into the United States. The figures
on the billboards may or may not be correct, but anyone hoping to use them in an
argument would do well to corroborate the information with other sources. (A
careful reader will notice the slippery language in less-than-reliable information.
In the first billboard, how little is very little? In the second, arrive is a vague
word with several possible meanings, including visit.
5. Pro-Life Americas numbers for condom failure are higher than Hatchers. The
claim that the condom failure rate among teenagers is 36 percent is not verified
except with vague reference to a study. Pro-Life Americas purpose here seems
127
to be to discourage sexual activity among teenagers, which may or may not call
their numbers into questions. Students should be given an opportunity to discuss
the possibility of bias and to research the numbers for themselves. Also, students
might want to discuss what failure rate means. Pro-Life America seems to be
suggesting that in every case, condom failure results in pregnancy.
6. Len Gougeon claims that Emerson and Thoreau were involved with the
Underground Railroad and that both gave money to John Brown to buy rifles.
Gougeons purpose seems to be to set the record straight. His language is
straightforward, though generously is vague. Gougeon is a professor of
literature whose letter is published in a very respectable magazine. Students
might want to research how many letters to the editors of premier journals and
newspapers (as compared to local dailies) are selected for publication.
7. It may well be true that 67 percent of listeners would prefer that the races be
separated. But that doesnt proved that sixty-seven percent of people prefer the
same. Are the callers to a radio talk show a representative sample of people
everywhere? Hardly.
8. Well, what did you expect him to say?
9. Students generally enjoy discussing the comic unreliability of tabloid newspapers

such as The Weekly World News. They might be reminded that tabloids such as
this cannot be trusted even when the news they print is true. It might also be noted
that such tabloids are aimed at a gullible readership and that they have a
disconcerting influence. Typing planet-dissolving dust cloud into Google will
generate over 700 hits.
10. The Onion is an online parody newspaper that publishes satirical articles about
newsworthy events (and non-events). Its intended audienceprimarily regular
readers who appreciate The Onions biting satirewont be misled by the
passage. Given the patent implausibility of such an event, few others will be
either.
11. Most students will understand immediately that the information in this item is
coming from a partisan source. Students should be cautioned, however, not to
dismiss the information out of hand (or to agree with it) until more research has
been conducted to discover the truth about violent crime in America. Students
might be encouraged to compare the Senate Democratic Policy Committees
information to that provided by its Republican counterpart. See Ten Key Facts
on Key Issues, 23 Oct. 2006, available at http://www.senate.gov/`rpc/index.cfm.
12. Tracy given no indication of a background in environmental science, though

she (or he) makes several claims about the effectiveness of computer modeling in
predicting climate change. How, students might ask, does Tracy know this? The
harsh language she uses to describe her opponent calls her objectivity into
128
question. Students should be cautioned against making any generalizations about

bloggers and might wish to discuss, instead, how and when to determine whether
a blogger is a reliable source of information and opinion. How reliable, for that
matter, is any information provided in personal spaces such as MySpace or
Facebook?
13. America (The Book) is a satirical romp through American history written by Jon
Stewart and the writers of Comedy Centrals fake new program, The Daily Show.
The passage is obviously a joke, but a pointed one given longstanding debates
about how disinterested the founding fathers motives were.
14. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is a very reliable source of information. This
item presents a good opportunity to inform students about resources for reliable
statistical information.
15. University Presses are generally reliable sources of information and opinion.
Exercise 12.4
Answers will vary. The paraphrases below present only possibilities:
1. In her book, Starting Out Suburban: A Frosh Year Survival Guide, Linda Polland
Puner suggests that most freshmen find it difficult to be away from home for the first
time. They miss some of the comforts such as good meals and privacy. Some are
lucky enough, particularly if their family lives nearby, to get home within the first
month of school, but others must wait until Thanksgiving or even Christmas. Even
just a semester away from home can seem very long and the distances can seem longer
than they really are.
2. Two possible paraphrases:

a) With his unique virtue and special skills, the cowboy, a distinctive American
creation, is anointed by our culture as a mythic hero, Robert N. Bellah claims in
Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Though the
cowboy is almost always seen as the outsider, it is a misconception to see him as
antisocial. That special skill to defend towns and defeat villains, ironically, isolates
the cowboy, as does his commitment to justice: though society needs and welcomes
him, he is so special that he cannot be one of us. So, characteristically, the cowboy
heroes ride off into the sunset or like the Lone Ranger are left with only one
companion.
b) America is also the inventor of that most mythic individual hero, the cowboy, who
again and again saves a society he can never completely fit into. The cowboy has a
special talenthe can shoot straighter and faster than other menand a special sense
of justice. But these characteristics make him so unique that he can never fully belong
to society. His destiny is to defend society without really joining it. He rides off alone
into the sunset like Shane, or like the Lone Ranger moves on accompanied only by his
129
Indian companion. But the cowboys importance is not that he is isolated or anti-
social. Rather his significance lies in his unique, individual virtue and special skill
and it is because of those qualities that society needs and welcomes him.
3. Two possible paraphrases:

a) The photographto narrow it downreduces us to two dimensions and it makes us
small enough to be represented on a piece of paper or a frame of film. We have been
trained by the camera to see the external world. We look at and not into, as one
philosopher has put it. We do not allow ourselves to be drawn into what we see. We
have been trained to go by the externals. The camera shows us only those, and it is we
who do the rest. What we do this with is the imagination. What photographs have to
show us is the external appearance of objects or beings in the real world, and this is
only a portion of their reality. It is after all a convention.
b) In Graven Images Saul Bellow contends that the convention of photography is to
reduce the world to a small, two-dimensional image in which the viewer of the picture
must supply the imagination to be able to see more than just the external
representation. As such, the convention epitomizes our cultural training to look at
rather than to be drawn into what we see. It is our imagination, though, Bellow
suggests, that allows us the opportunity to see beyond the limitation of the external
representation and discover a reality greater than the convention would appear to
expose.
4. Researchers have found that phonemic awareness, or the ability to sound out words, is
perhaps the single most important requirement for good reading skills. The ability
appears to be a more important indicator of reading success than IQ scores and
vocabulary and listening comprehension tests. Having a proper assessment tool in
place, therefore, can help direct the teacher to awareness of potential problems and to
the use of available exercises that will enable the student to acquire stronger spelling
and reading skills.
5. A brief paraphrase:
Hip-hop music and culture are becoming increasingly popular. Even young children
are singing hip-hop lyrics, not knowing what they mean. Unfortunately, more and
more messages of sexism and misogyny are taught through hip-hop lyrics and music
videos. These messages force themselves into conventional thinking, leading to
narrow-mindedness, heightened violence against women, increased rates of
incarceration for minority youths, and the viewing of women as sex objects and
fashion accessories.
Exercise 12.5
1. Because rules are precise and must be followed to the letter, it would be best to quote
the rule or the relevant part of the rule exactly as it appears in the book In claiming
that a player should have lost a tournament, someone might write, In hitting the ball
twice, Sampras clearly violated Rule 20d, which prohibits the player from
130
deliberately touch[ing] it [the ball] with his racket more than once in a given point.
The writer would need, of course, to prove that the action was deliberate.
2. The comments in this excerpt could be paraphrased, although perhaps the last lien
could be quoted: This is the greatest generation any society has produced.
3. The first line should be quoted (Gym class was another brush with fascism), but the
rest of the passage could be paraphrased as long as the paraphrase didnt lose the
humor or tone.
4. The passage could be paraphrased or summarized with some phrases quoted if

necessary. The following sentence might appear in a students paper: Athletes who
push themselves to the limit often incur injuries, but the medical community is now
considering whether athletes who push too hard might be susceptible to a host of
chronic diseases, even cancer (Tabor).
5. Students will want to quote most of this passage out of respect for the document and
the writer, but much of the excerpt could be paraphrased while key phrases are
retained. If you have time, ask your students to paraphrase this passage.
Exercise 12.6
Many students know that ideas, opinions, interpretations, arguments and the like need to
be documented. This exercise is intended to give students some practice in a more
difficult aspect of research--determining when facts should be documented. Prepare to get
some argument on many of these items. The arguments however can help demonstrate
that with few exceptions (statistics, for example), knowing what to document is not an
exact science, and that students need to think when deciding what to document. Many
students, Ive discovered, will want to document what they did not personally know, so
that some students will, for example, want to document Barry Bonds' home run record.
One handy device for helping in some cases is to ask students to imagine introducing the
point with the phrase, According to _______. According to The Sporting News, Barry
Bonds holds the record for home runs in a season. Such an introduction suggests that
other sources would disagree, that the record is a matter of debate, or that only The
Sporting News knows about the record. It should be clear that the fact does not have to
be documented. On the other hand, some items seem to call for an introduction:
According to _________, Hitler applied to the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts in October
1907 but was rejected. Later, penniless and unwilling to work, he ended up in a homeless
shelter. The phrase unwilling to work might be debated among Hitlers biographers.
The item needs to be documented.
1. Fact available in wide variety of sources: does not need to be documented.

131
2. Could be considered common knowledge, but it might be best to tell where this fact
was acquired.
3. Statistics always need documentation.
4. Although many people might be able to list from memory the five best-selling albums
of all time, this fact should be documented. One clue that this information needs to be
cited is the inclusion of a date, as of August, 1999. The fact may have changed since
then, so it would be wise to say where the information came from. Also, its possible
that different sources measure sales differently, another reason to document this item.
5. A fact surprising enough to be documented.
6. No need to document this, but a writer who did would not be violating any rules.
7. No need to document this fact; it is widely known and available.
8. Probably common knowledge.
9. Common knowledge.
10. This one is tricky. For scholars of Dickenss life and work, this is a commonly known
fact: Dickenss childhood experiences are indeed reflected in several of his novels.
Therefore, in preparing an argument for a literature class, a student would most
likely find this information in several sources and would not have to cite it. However,
a writer would not be incorrect in giving a source if he or she chose to do so. The
paper might contain the sentence, According to Charles Dickenss friend and
biographer, John Forster, the novelists childhood experiences, including his fathers
imprisonment for debt and Dickenss subsequent work in a shoe-polish factory,
influenced his work as a novelist.
11. This fact should be documented.
12. Because some students are confused by this fact, they will want to document it,
although it does not need to be.
13. This is still being debated, so it would be best to tell the reader the source of the
information.
14. Common knowledge, at least among baseball fans. No need to document.
15. Probably does not need to be documented any more that other scientific facts (the sun
is approximately 93 million miles from the earth), but I would not quarrel with a
student who provided the source of this information. Students should be reminded
that they should check the accuracy of facts such as this one in other sources. If they
find that the information is not common knowledge or is debatable, they should be
ready to credit their sources.
132
133
Chapter 13: Writing Argumentative Essays
This chapter walks students through the process of writing an argument, and each of the
exercises reflects a step along the way.
Exercise 13.1
At this point in the course, most students will understand that an argument is not a fight
to be won at all costs and that they should defend their claims with well chosen evidence
and clear logic. The opening of Chapter 13 provides an opportunity to remind students
that while tactics such as overt emotional appeals, personal attacks and manufactured
evidence might help win an argument, they have no place in serious arguments or
discussions. Even if you decide not to include a written argument in the critical thinking
course, this chapter may help students further realize the necessity of arguing fairly.
Primarily, the opening part of the chapter asks students to keep in mind that all arguments
should be evaluated on their merits and not on whether the audience agrees with them.
Students should also know, however, that writing an argument is not a dry, bloodless
exercise in marshalling evidence and premises to support a claim. This exercise gives you
and students a chance to talk about the role of emotions in presenting an argument.
Although this is, admittedly, a complicated topic, students might be asked, first, to recall
how emotions can impede clear perception and rational thought. They might be asked to
recall the fallacy that occurs when an arguer attempts to evoke irrelevant feelings in an
audience. They might be asked further to decide when and how to use emotions in an
argument. Obviously, a writer or speaker must have a great distaste for contradiction,
illogic, unfair appeals and so on, and a love for clarity, precision, fairness, and so forth.
Clearly the best arguments demonstrate a great passion for justice, a hatred of prejudice,
and respect for opponents. But, students might be asked, can emotional appeals find their
way into good, well-reasoned arguments? Is the appeal to emotions always fallacious?
Students might be asked whether it is desirable, or even possible, to divorce reason
from feelings, or to consider how an arguer might distinguish between his purely
personal emotions and ones that are more widely shared and, perhaps, therefore more
reasonable.
Finally, this exercise ends the discussion of what makes an good argument and how
arguments are to be evaluated. What follows from this point will help students construct
arguments that will be evaluated according to prescribed criteria. (I sometimes ask my
students if I should count my agreement and disagreement with a students argument as
one of the criterion for assessment. They are unanimous in their decision.) I give the
students the following assessment criteria when I assign the paper.
Writer
The writer avoids appearing to merely fulfill an assignment, and, instead, writes honestly,
with confidence, conviction and enthusiasm, showing that he or she cares about the topic
134
and the claim. The writer demonstrates understanding of the topic chosen for discussion
and does not defend the claim with unexamined, usually erroneous premises that are the
result more of habit than thought or research. The writer avoids sounding arrogant, overly
aggressive or pretentious and avoids egocentrism, sociocentrism or wishful thinking. The
writer uses a tone appropriate to the topic.
Audience
The writer shows a keen sense of audience and does not insult, berate or ridicule readers
or use personal attacks against those who hold an opposing view. The audience is
assumed to be slightly skeptical, open-minded, intelligent, rational, humane and fair and
is treated with respect. The writer anticipates readers reactions, especially those of
potential opponents and renders opponents arguments accurately and charitably.
Topic
The selected topic is important, controversial (or unusual), interesting and narrow enough
to be dealt with adequately in the space allowed. The writer avoids topics too
complicated or too vast.
Thesis
The argument defends a single, central claim, usually expressed in a thesis statement
provided in the opening paragraph. The thesis presents a position on the topic. The thesis
is limited to the assertion that the writer intends to prove, and the essay does not digress
from the thesis.
Organization (Form)
The essay contains an interesting introduction, body paragraphs that develop the thesis,
and an effective conclusion. The essay flows coherently from paragraph to paragraph. A
pattern of development is clear throughout the essay. The pattern is logical, effective and
appropriate given the topic and the thesis. Opposing arguments are introduced and
addressed at appropriate points in the essay.
Development (Content)
The central claim is defended with premises that are themselves, when necessary,
supported with well-selected facts and opinions. Only credible sources are used. Premises
and conclusions are connected logically. Fallacies and emotional appeals are avoided.
Assumptions are examined. Key terms are defined when necessary, and definitions are
provided in a suitable manner. Opposing arguments are rebutted convincingly. Arguments
and subarguments are cogent or sound. The overall argument is complete.
135
Expression
Sentences are clear, concise, and complete; the essay is free of grammatical errors.
Sentence structures and lengths are varied to avoid a choppy style. Words are carefully
selected and used correctly.
Conventions
Punctuation and spelling are conventional. Manuscript is properly prepared (margins are
correct, title is provided, name and date are given, pages are numbered, and so forth).
Exercise 13.2
The letter is filled with emotive language, insults and attacks. Since the letter was
published in a newspaper with a wide readership, the author, it could be assumed, is
attempting to persuade readers to accept his claim to oppose the tax increase and to vote
against Democrats. Students will want to say that the letter is ineffective, but they might
consider that the letter could be effective in convincing non-critical thinkers.
Exercise 13.3
The two parts of this exercise provide topics and questions for students preparing an
argument. Here are 120 additional topics and questions, most of which are intended
to be topic-generators. Students must narrow the topic and refine the question when
necessary.
1. Should the United States continue the war on drugs?

2. Should marijuana be legalized for medicinal purposes?
3. Should we end the practice of building homes and business on Americas
coastlines?
4. Are pollution laws too strict? Not strict enough?
5. Is global warming myth or fact?
6. Should the police be allowed to photograph people entering public events (as was
done at the Super Bowl in 2001)?
7. Its often said that we are a litigious society. Are we?
8. Should recycling laws be trimmed back, left alone, or increased?
9. Should the United States pursue an antiballistic missile defense system?
10. Should it be illegal to download music from the Internet?
11. Should executions in high-profile cases (Timothy McVeigh's, for example) be
televised?
12. Should credit card companies be barred from advertising on college campuses?
13. Should federal funds be available to church-run organizations that serve
community needs?
14. At what age should someone accused of a crime be tried as an adult?
15. Should the United States pay reparations for slavery?
136
16. Was the United States justified in going to war with Iraq in the Second Gulf War?
17. Should the United States intervene in internal conflicts in other nations?
18. Should the United States intervene in conflicts between other nations?
19. Should defense spending be increased? Decreased?
20. What limits, if any, should the federal government place on the Internet?
21. Should pornography on the Internet be regulated?
22. Do we need more gun control laws?
23. Should the SAT be eliminated as a college admissions test?
24. Does illegal immigration harm the economy?
25. Is the private sex life of a political figure the publics business?
26. How relevant is ones private life to public office?
27. Should the U.S. have ratified the Kyoto Treaty?
28. Should Congress institute term limits?
29. Do we need campaign finance laws?
30. Is space exploration a waste of money?
31. Is there anything to faith healing?
32. Is human cloning ethical?
33. Do individuals have a right to die?
34. When does life end?
35. Is professional wrestling harmful to those who watch it?
36. Should the government permit or prohibit physician-assisted suicide?
37. Should old, unused nuclear power plants are being purchased and put back on-
line?
38. Should sex education be taught in public schools?
39. Should condoms be distributed in public schools?
40. Should parents who put a newborn up for adoption be allowed to change their
minds?
41. Are we too concerned with the rights of criminals?
42. Is the victim ever responsible for the crime?
43. Is animal experimentation justified?
44. Is American culture on the decline?
45. Is grade inflation a problem at your school?
46. Should high school students be required to pass a standardized test before
graduating?
47. Do paramilitary organizations pose a threat against the government?
48. Are the ACLUs objectives too extreme?
49. Can the government require some citizens to be sterilized?
50. Should Division I athletes be paid?
51. Do media portraits of women encourage eating disorders?
52. Should endangered species take priority over property rights?
53. Should tenure be abolished in public education?
54. Should the media pay more attention to third political parties?
55. Should third parties be invited to participate in televised debates?
56. Should the Electoral College be eliminated?
57. Are multicultural approaches good for education?
58. Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children?
137
59. Should some sports teams (Atlanta Braves, for example) be required to change
their names?
60. Do Barbie dolls give little girls the wrong impression?
61. Is there any harm in beauty pageants?
62. Should children (e.g., four or five years old) participate in beauty pageants?
63. Should Americans curtail their consumption of beef?
64. Have we made too much of sexual harassment?
65. Should the government step in when parents refuse medical treatment for their
children for religious reasons?
66. Is Howard Stern dangerous?
67. Should campuses institute speech codes? If so, what language should be
prohibited?
68. Are Catholic schools more successful than public ones?
69. Is home schooling an effective way to educate children?
70. Should the practice of circumcision be stopped?
71. Should college students be required to take courses in a general education or core
curriculum?
72. Should college students be required by their schools to perform community
service or take service learning courses?
73. Should a mother whose child is born addicted to crack be charged with a crime?
74. Should Pete Rose be admitted to the Baseball Hall of Fame?
75. Should a singer whose lyrics are considered offensive to some groups be
disqualified from awards competitions such as the Grammys?
76. Should boxing be outlawed?
77. Should Israel return any land to the Palestinians?
78. Should the government outlaw some dog breeds? Should some dog breeds be
exterminated?
79. Is there anything wrong with an African American using what are normally
considered racist terms?
80. Should radar detectors be outlawed in all states?
81. How serious (or widespread) are any of the following (some topics can be
narrowed to the students hometown or campus): violence against homosexuals,
violence among teenagers, domestic abuse, racism , discrimination, teen
pregnancy, terrorism , nursing home abuse, hate crimes, homelessness, gang
violence, media violence, pollution, gun violence, drug use and addiction, child
abuse?
82. Should Hooters restaurants be boycotted?
83. Is plagiarism really all that bad?
84. Should students with special needs be educated in classrooms with everyone else?
85. Are sanctions against aggressor nations effective? Moral?
86. Should tax money be used to fund art exhibits that some groups find offensive?
87. Is gambling a victimless crime?
88. Should doctors be prohibited from performing elective cosmetic surgery on
teenagers who request it (e.g., on sixteen-year-old women requesting breast
augmentation?)
89. Have academic standards eroded?
138
90. Was the United States justified in dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki in World War II?
91. Is the Confederate flag a racist symbol?
92. Is the tobacco tax unfair?
93. Should high schools require an admissions test?
94. Should women be allowed to become Catholic priests?
95. Does the World Trade Organization present a threat to workers in developing
nations?
96. Should the Brady Bill be eliminated?
97. What really happened at Roswell, New Mexico?
98. Should Martin Luther King Day be a day off for students in public schools?
99. Should a couple live together before they marry?
100. Are people who make long lists neurotic?
Some general topics that may be narrowed into an arguable thesis:
1. American isolationism
2. Globalization
3. The North American Free Trade Agreement
4. Non-traditional medical practices
5. The effect of free agency on professional sports
6. The advantages and disadvantages of widespread computerization
7. Computer ethics
8. The insanity defense
9. Performance enhancing drugs and athletics
10. The Olympics
11. Income tax reform
12. English as the official language
13. Oil companies and the environment
14. Nuclear proliferation
15. Dieting and weight control
16. Managed health care
17. Trade unions
18. The value of the literary canon
19. Childrens rights
20. Immigration reform
Exercise 13.4
As written, this exercise assumes that arguments are being written by groups of students,
but the advice in the exercise is applicable to individuals writing their own papers.
139
Exercise 13.5
This exercise invites students to consider that various approaches can be taken to the
same topic.
Exercise 13.6
This exercise assigns the paper.
Grading Rubric
Personally, we find traditional rubrics very hard to use when grading papers. Some
categories unavoidably overlap, and we find most rubrics too limiting. They can also give
the student a false sense that the very complicated and interwoven process of writing is
reducible to a code. Nonetheless, the following rubric may be of use when grading
arguments.
140
Criteria 5 3 1
Writer addresses topic Tone is okay, but essay Writing is bland or
with enthusiasm and lacks enthusiasm or pretentious, too casual
conviction and shows conviction. Writer or too formal. Writer
knowledge of subject understands topic, but sounds bored or
matter (doesnt merely does not show total antagonistic. Tone is
string together quotes, command over material inappropriate for topic.
Writer
for example). Tone is (opting for quotes Writer needs to learn
appropriate to topic. when paraphrases are more about topic: much
more appropriate, for of the argument sounds
example). like a rehash of
conventional arguments
and ideas.
Writer shows respect Writer shows respect Writer insults, berates,
for readers, for readers and or ridicules reader.
reconstructs opposing attempts to reconstruct Opposing arguments
arguments fairly and opposing argument are misrepresented,
Audience charitably, and fairly and charitably. ignored, or dismissed
anticipates and Writer does not too easily. Writer
answers readers anticipate all important, seldom if ever
reactions. likely reactions. anticipates readers
reactions.
Topic is important, Topic is controversial Topic is trivial,
interesting, but could be further common, or overdone.
controversial, or narrowed to allow for a Topic is too
Topic unusual and is more interesting or complicated or too
narrowed unusual (or large for the length of
appropriately. manageable) the argument.
approach.
Central claim is clear; Thesis is clear but Thesis is unclear. At
thesis is limited and could be further end of argument reader
defended throughout. limited. Argument may cannot say, This paper
wander slightly from argues that _____.)
Thesis thesis. Thesis is too broad;
argument does not stick
to thesis.
141
Introduction is Essay has a three-part Paper seems aimless at

compelling. Body structure, and points. Organization is
paragraphs present organizational pattern unclear or ineffective.
defense. Conclusion is is discernible, but a No overall pattern is
Organizatio effective. Overall more effective pattern discernible. Essay is
n pattern is effective and might have been not coherent.
(Form) appropriate for topic chosen. Paper flows
and thesis. Paper from point to point,
proceeds smoothly with perhaps a few
from point to point. transitional problems
along the way.
Argument is supported Argument is supported Support is very weak,
throughout with well- but some support is irrelevant, insufficient,
selected facts and weak, unreliable or or nonexistent.
opinions. Sources are incomplete. Fallacies or emotional
credible. Premises and Key terms are not well appeals are present.
conclusions are defined. Some Terms are undefined.
connected logically assumptions left Assumptions are
(i.e., arguments are unexamined. Obvious unexamined. Opposing
Development
deductively valid or opposing arguments are arguments are ignored.
(Content)
inductively strong). left unanswered. Overall argument is
Fallacies are avoided. incomplete or difficult
Assumptions are to understand.
examined. Key terms
are defined. Opposing
arguments are rebutted
convincingly.
Sentences are clear and Some grammar errors Grammar errors

grammatically sound. are present, but the distract and impede the
Sentences structures overall effect of the reader and cause
Expression and length are varied. essay is not hampered. misreading. Style is
Words are used Not all words are used choppy and distracting.
appropriately. appropriately. Misuse of words
creates misreading.
Punctuation and Some errors in Enough errors to be
spelling are accurate punctuation, spelling, distracting or cause
throughout. and mechanics (e.g., confusion. Paper was
Conventional margins, spacing), but not proof-read.
Conventions manuscript format is the essay is still Formatting is
used (e.g., font, readable. unconventional,
margins). Appropriate annoying, or
documentation style is manipulated to make
used. paper appear longer.
142
The rubric can be handed to students when the argumentative essay is assigned, and the
following grading sheet can be used to score papers. The sheet allows an evaluator to
comment on what a student has done well and what might be done better next time. It
provides room for comment on some or all of the various criteria listed under the main
headings, so that, for example, a professor could compliment a student on his or her
choice of an organizational scheme and still suggest a better pattern for defending the
thesis. The instructor can also underline or circle relevant phrases and sentences in the
left column. The drawback in using such a grading sheet is that the evaluator must take
the time to write a short comment even in those areas where the students paper is strong.
But because the comments in the grade sheet are bolstered by comments written in the
margins of the students essay, the final comments can be short and allusive.
143
Score
In the best papers How your paper compares
1-5
Writer
The writer avoids appearing to merely fulfill

an assignment and instead, writes honestly,
with confidence, conviction, and enthusiasm,
showing that he or she cares about the topic
and the claim. The writer demonstrates
understanding of the topic chosen for
discussion and does not defend the claim
with unexamined, usually erroneous premises
that are the result more of habit than thought
or research. The writer avoids sounding
arrogant, overly aggressive, or pretentious
and avoids egocentrism, sociocentrism, or
wishful thinking. The writer uses a tone
appropriate to the topic.
Audience
The writer shows a keen sense of audience

and does not insult, berate, or ridicule readers
or use personal attacks against those who
hold an opposing view. The audience is
assumed to be slightly skeptical, open
minded, intelligent, rational, humane and fair
and is treated with respect. The writer
anticipates readers reactions, especially
those of potential opponents and renders
opponents arguments accurately and
charitably.
144
Topic
The selected topic is controversial (or

unusual), interesting, and narrow enough to
be dealt with adequately in the space
allowed. The writer avoids topics too
complicated or too vast.
Thesis
The argument defends a single, central claim,
usually expressed in a thesis statement
provided in the opening paragraph. The
thesis presents a position on the topic. The
thesis is limited to the assertion that the
writer intends to prove, and the essay does
not digress from the thesis.
145
Organization (Form)
The essay contains an interesting

introduction, body paragraphs that develop
the thesis, and an effective conclusion. The
essay flows coherently from paragraph to
paragraph. A pattern of development is clear
throughout the essay. The pattern is logical,
effective, and appropriate given the topic and
the thesis. Opposing arguments are
introduced and addressed at an appropriate
point in the essay.
Development (Content)
The central claim is defended with premises

that are themselves, when necessary,
supported with well-selected facts and
opinions. Only credible sources are used.
Premises and conclusions are connected
logically. Fallacies are avoided. Assumptions
are examined. Key terms are defined when
necessary, and definitions are provided in a
suitable manner. Opposing arguments are
rebutted convincingly. Argument and
subarguments are cogent or sound. The
overall argument is complete.
Expression
Sentences are clear, concise, and complete;

the essay is free of grammatical errors.
Sentence structures and lengths are varied to
avoid a choppy style. Words are selected
carefully and used correctly.
146
Conventions
Punctuation and spelling are conventional.

Manuscript is properly prepared (margins are
correct, title is provided, name and date are
given, pages are numbered, and so forth).
Overall Assessment
Score: ____/40
147
Rubric for Critical Argumentation Skills
5 The writers main conclusion or thesis is clearly stated. The argument is

supported throughout with credible, well-sustained evidence. Conclusions
are supported by sound reasoning. Fallacies and logical inconsistencies are
avoidable. Credible sources are used. Key terms are defined. Important
assumptions are identified. Competing points of view are identified and
examined fairly. Opposing arguments are addressed and rebutted
convincingly. Implications and consequences are clearly identified and are
amply supported by the evidence presented.
4 The writers main conclusion or thesis is clearly stated. With minor

exceptions, the argument is supported with credible, well-substantiated
evidence. Conclusions are supported by sound reasoning, but some minor
logical lapses occur. Fallacies and logical inconsistencies are avoided.
Credible sources are used. Key terms are defined, but not always with
sufficient clarity. Assumptions are generally identified, but a few are left
unexamined. Competing points of view are identified and with minor
exceptions are examined fairly. Opposing arguments are stated fairly, but
some arguments are not fully rebutted. Implications and consequences are
identified and are substantially supported by the evidence presented.
3 The writers main conclusion or thesis is stated, but not with complete
clarity. The argument is mostly supported with credible, well-substantiated
evidence, but some claims are dubious. For the most part, conclusions are
supported by sound reasoning, but some significant logical lapses occur.
Fallacies and logical inconsistencies are generally avoided, but some
fallacious and/or inconsistent arguments or claims are offered. A few
sources are not credible. Key terms are generally well-defined, but some
important terms are undefined or are defined imprecisely. Some important
assumptions are left unexamined. Some points of view are not
acknowledged or are not examined with complete fairness. Opposing
arguments are generally stated fairly and rebutted convincingly, but some
important opposing arguments are unexamined or are not successfully
rebutted. For the most part, implications and consequences are identified
and adequately supported by the evidence presented.
2 The writers main conclusion or thesis is stated, but is unclear or varies as

the argument develops. Some parts of the argument are supported with
credible, well-substantiated evidence, but significant portions are not. A
number of conclusions are not supported by sound reasoning. Some major
fallacies and/or logical inconsistencies are committed. A number of
sources are not credible. Several important key terms are left undefined.
Some significant assumptions are unidentified. A number of key
148
competing points of view are unidentified or are not examined fairly.

Some important opposing arguments are unexamined, stated unfairly, or
not sufficiently rebutted. Some notable implications and consequences are
unidentified or not sufficiently supported by the evidence presented.
1 The writer fails to state his or her main conclusion or thesis. The argument
is not supported with credible, well-substantiated evidence. Conclusions
are not supported by sound reasoning. Several major fallacies and/or
logical inconsistencies are committed. Many sources are not credible. Key
terms are undefined. Important assumptions are unidentified. Competing
points of view are unidentified or are examined unfairly. Opposing
arguments are unexamined, stated unfairly, or not adequately rebutted.
Implications and consequences are unidentified or are poorly supported by
the evidence presented.
Rubric for Critical Evaluation Skills
5 The writer clearly identifies the main point or conclusion of the argument.
Key supporting arguments are identified clearly, accurately, and
completely. The writer identifies key assumptions, concepts, and
implications of the argument, and is sensitive to the authors purpose(s)
and points of view. The writers evaluation of the supporting arguments is
specific, thorough, and cogently argued. The writers overall evaluation of
the argument is stated clearly and is fully supported by the arguments
provided.
4 The writer identifies the main point or conclusion of the argument. The
main supporting arguments are, with minor lapses, identified clearly,
accurately, and completely. The writer identifies key assumptions,
concepts, and implications of the argument, and is substantially sensitive
to the authors purpose(s) and point of view. The writers evaluation of the
supporting arguments is specific, through, and substantially cogent. The
writers overall evaluation of the argument is stated clearly and is strongly
supported by the arguments provided.
3 The writer substantially identifies the main point or conclusion but fails to
describe it with complete accuracy. The main supporting arguments are
generally identified correctly, but not as clearly, accurately, or completely
as in level 4 or 5. The writer identifies key assumptions, concepts, and
implications of the argument adequately but not completely, and is
generally sensitive to the authors purpose(s) and point of view. The
writers evaluation of the supporting arguments is substantially sound, but
there are some notable deficiencies in terms of clarity, thoroughness, and
cogency. The writers overall evaluation of the argument is stated more or
less clearly and is generally supported by the arguments provided.
149
2 The writer more or less identifies the main point or conclusion, but fails to
describe it accurately or completely. The main supporting arguments are
generally identified correctly, but some key arguments are unidentified or
are identified vaguely or inaccurately. The writer fails to identify some key
assumptions, concepts, and implications of the argument, and largely
misreads or fails to grasp the authors purpose(s) and point of view. The
writers evaluation of the supporting arguments, while not wholly
unsatisfactory, contains serious deficiencies in terms of clarity,
thoroughness, and cogency. The writers overall evaluation of the
argument is not stated clearly and precisely, and is not strongly supported
by the arguments provided.
1 The writer fails to identify the main point or conclusion. The writer fails to
identify all or most of the main supporting arguments or identifies them
vaguely or inaccurately. The writer fails to identify key assumptions,
concepts, and implications of the argument, and fails to grasp the authors
purpose(s) and point of view. The writers evaluation of the supporting
arguments is seriously deficient in terms of clarity, thoroughness, and
cogency. The writer fails to state an overall evaluation of the argument or
states it very unclearly. The arguments offered to support the overall
evaluation are weak and provide little or no support for the conclusion.
150
Chapter 14: Thinking Critically about the Media
It is important to note that this chapter is not, and does not pretend to be, a course in
media studies, which is obviously a complicated and sophisticated field of inquiry that
could hardly be summed up in a few dozen pages. The focus of this chapter is on the
student as a consumer of news from the mainstream press and a target of advertisers. We
have limited our analysis of the media to the way news and advertising might best be
digested by a student of critical thinking who values those standards mentioned in
Chapter 1: clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, consistency, logical correctness,
completeness, and fairness. Rather than argue that the news media and advertisers are
unconcerned with such standards, we contend that a critical thinker must recognize that
the standards are often violated, even inadvertently, by the medias need to reach a large
audience and to keep that audience interested. We start with a discussion about what we
see as the central problem that results in the medias emphasis on reaching and holding a
large audiencethe lack of context in which complicated and significant events can be
fully understood. Removing events from their contexts does much damage to such critical
thinking standards as clarity, accuracy, relevance, completeness, and fairness, and we ask
students who value those standards to recognize, first, that the news is not always clear,
accurate, relevant, complete, and fair, and, second, that a consumer of news and
advertising must struggle to maintain those standards in the onslaught of news and
advertising images and messages. Most of the exercises in this chapter are collaborative.
With few exceptions, there are no right and wrong answers for the exercises in this
chapter. The objective is to provide students with a more sophisticated understanding of
the media through an active engagement with the products of the media.
Exercise 14.1
This exercise emphasizes the point that the mass media tends to remove issues from their
broader contexts and to deliver abbreviated messages that might be confusing, open to
interpretation, or misleading. Students might be reminded that the purpose of the exercise
(and the chapter) is not to disparage the media or to suggest that the media are
consciously manipulating readers and viewers. With limited time on news broadcasts and
limited space in magazines and newspapers (pages can be added, but only at greater
expense), the media must be selective in deciding how to pare a story. This exercise asks
students to select several newspapers to compare the attention each gives to a common
story. Students are asked in the exercise to consider what questions an interested reader
might have after encountering an interesting but undeveloped item in a paper. This is a
good time to ask students if they generally pursue information beyond what they read in
the daily paper or hear on the local news. As the first exercise in the chapter, this is a
good place to discuss the standards of critical thinking mentioned in chapter 1, especially
completeness and accuracy. Students might be asked, also, how usually incomplete news
items can help prop up some of the barriers to critical thinking. With the limited
151
information we get from a news source and, failing to investigate further, do we

sometimes feed our self-serving biases, for example?
Exercise 14.2
To demonstrate that different publications target different audiences, this exercise asks
students to compare the advertisements in several media sources. For some students,
the exercise is an eye-opener if only because they are unfamiliar with publications
other than the most recognized newsmagazines and popular magazines (unless, of
course, they were introduced to journals of opinion in Chapter 12).
Exercise 14. 3
The three parts of this exercise require students to look closely at how the medias
selection of topics often reveals a common thread of conflict and emotional appeal.
Students might be reminded in this exercise that conflict in itself does not make a
topic unworthy, that, instead, conflicts are often important stories, and that few of us
want a news media that focuses solely on pleasant topics. The objective of the
exercise is to show that some media sources heighten conflict to grab and hold our
attention. Similarly, many stories are selected only for their entertainment value, as
alert students will discover in their completion of the exercise.
Exercise 14.4
This exercise provides a facts-only list and asks students to write two articles with
contrasting effects on the audience. This exercise is one of the most effective in
helping students understand the power of language, selection and organization. Its
important that students are cautioned against revealing their opinion too openly; they
dont want to say, Daria is a loser. And they shouldnt falsify anything or add facts
not listed. The writer must achieve his or her intended effect subtly.
Exercise 14.5
Many students have strong opinions on the subject of media bias. This exercise gives
students an opportunity to air their views on media bias and objectivity in dialogue with
others.
152
Exercise 14.6
Although many students do not read a daily paper and seem at times uninterested in
starting the habit, they will generally read the school paper, which provides a gold
mine for applying the lessons of this chapter.
Exercise 14.7
I.
This exercise used to work well on our campus, because until recently free copies of the
New York Times, USA Today, and two local papers were available to all students, faculty,
and staff. Unfortunately, this noble attempt to foster current-affairs literacy fell victim to
the budget ax.
II.
This exercise is useful primarily in alerting students to the audience corporate advertisers
target in network news broadcasts.
Exercise 14.8
This exercise encourages reflection on some key ethical issues in advertising.
Exercise 14.9
1. f 14. g
2. o 15. v
3. h 16. u
4. k 17. e
5. a 18. m
6. x 19. w
7. l 20. y
8. d 21. r
9. i 22. s
10. c 23. p
11. l 24. q
12. t 25. b
13. n
Exercise 14.10
153
I. and II.
These exercises help students recognize common advertising ploys.
III.
1. Weasel word (fights)

2. Anxiety ad
3. Feel-good ad; image ad
4. Catchy slogan
5. A fine-print disclaimer that definitely should not be overlooked
6. Puffery
7. Humor
8. Catchy jingle
9. Puffery
10. Emotive words
11. Fine-print disclaimer
12. Celebrity appeal and puffery
13. Sex appeal
14. Puffery and catchy jingle
15. Image ad
16. Anxiety ad
17. Puffery
18. Fine-print disclaimer
19. Catchy slogan
20. Puffery and emotive words
21. Image ad and emotive words
22. Anxiety ad
23. Image ad
24. Feel-good and image ad
25. Sex appeal
154
Chapter 15: Science and Pseudoscience
Exercise 15.1
1. Select a large number of persons suffering from chronic back pain. Randomly divide
them into an experimental group and a control group. Then perform a series of double-
blind experiments using real and phony magnets. If members of the experimental group
report significantly greater pain relief than do members of the control group, that would
support the hypothesis. Note that because the hypothesis is so vague, a large number of
experiments would need to be performed in order to effectively falsify the hypothesis.
Tests would need to be performed involving magnets of various sizes and strengths,
various placements on or around the body, different lengths of treatment, and so forth.
2. The most reliable way to test this hypothesis is by means of a randomized experimental
study. For ethical reasons, however, a nonrandomized prospective or retrospective study
would probably be preferable.
3.This hypothesis can be tested by means of a long-term randomized experimental study.
4. Obviously, for both practical and ethical reasons, carefully controlled experimental
studies cannot be conducted on the sex lives of teenagers. However, we can conceive of
ethical and reasonably reliable prospective or retrospective studies that would confirm or
refute the hypothesis. Such studies would have be very large and very sophisticated to
control for other variables. Note also that the phrase "safe sex education" is vague and
would need to be defined more precisely before the hypothesis could be effectively
tested.
5. This hypothesis can be tested by means of a nonrandomized retrospective study. Select

a large, representative sample of Vietnam veterans with children. Randomly divide these
into two groups: an experimental group of Vietnam veterans with children who were
exposed to Agent Orange and a control group of Vietnam veterans with children who
were not exposed to Agent Orange. If the children of members of the experimental group
exhibit birth defects at significantly higher rates than do children of members of the
control group, this would support the hypothesis. Note, however, that it would be very
difficult to control for other variables.
Exercise 15.2
1. Not testable. The claim is not realistically verifiable or falsifiable, though scientific
evidence no doubt bears on the issue.
2. Not testable. Angels, if they exist, are supernatural beings that cannot be studied by
scientific methods. Beliefs about guardian angels are typically based on the Bible, church
teaching, or personal religious experiences. None of these grounds is a proper basis for
scientific conclusions.
155
3. Testable. Take two sets of identical razor blades. Store them for various lengths of time
under identical atmospheric and other conditions, except that one set of blades is placed
under pyramids of various sizes and materials and the other set is not. Then test the
sharpness of the blades in a way that can be precisely measured and is not subject to
experimenter bias.
4. Not testable (value statement).
5. Not testable. Because all possible evidence that might tend to show that the claim is
false is, by hypothesis, thoroughly deceptive, the claim is not falsifiable.
6. Testable. It's easy to imagine evidence that would verify the claim--for example, if the
carcass of a large Plesiosaur washed up on the shores of Loch Ness. Falsifying the claim
is much more difficult. However, we can imagine scientific observations or tests that
would show beyond a reasonable doubt that no such monster exists. For example,
extensive sonar, photographic and underwater searches might find no evidence that any
Plesiosaur-like creatures live in the Loch. Similarly, scientific studies might show that
there is too little food in the Loch to support a breeding population of large predators.
7. Not testable. We can imagine evidence that would falsify the claim--superintelligent
extraterrestrials might visit the earth, for example--but the claim is not realistically
verifiable, because we have no way to search the immensity of space.
8. Not testable. Claims about existential or cosmic purposes are not scientifically testable.
9. Not testable. The claim is too vague to be tested and too general to allow any testable
conclusions to be drawn about the alleged psychic abilities of the reader.
10. Not realistically verifiable. Not only would tree-counters have to resolve difficult
borderline cases (Is this a tree or a bush? Is this scraggly looking tree dead or
alive?), but there is no way, even with an army of counters, that all living trees in
Canada could be located (many are in remote areas, growing in tall grasses, hidden under
leaves, etc.). And even if these obstacles could somehow be overcome, any ongoing
count would be continually invalidated by the growth of new trees and the deaths of
others.
11. Testable only if "fundamentally selfish" is given a clear, empirically observable

meaning. Upon close examination, it often turns out that those who assert this claim often
define selfish in such a way that the claim is either trivially true or empirically
unfalsifiable. See Joel Feinberg's "Psychological Egoism," in Joel Feinberg, ed., Reason
and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy, 8th ed. (Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth, 1993), pp. 461-72, and in later editions, for a classic discussion.
12. Testable to some extent. Find a representative sample of patients suffering from some
often-curable disease (e.g., breast cancer). Randomly divide them into experimental and
156
control groups. Then conduct a double-blind experiment in which all the patients are
treated exactly the same except that one group is prayed for by a group of intercessors
and the other group is not. (To make the experiment really interesting pick a variety of
intercessors: evangelical Christians, liberal Catholics, Mormons, Hindus, Wiccans, and
perhaps even some atheists or agnostics.) Then check to see whether members of the
experimental group(s) are cured at higher rates than the control group(s). Note, however,
that it's not probably impossible to perform tightly controlled tests of this hypothesis.
Most seriously ill patients have at least some friends or relatives who are praying for
them. Moreover, religious individuals throughout the world are constantly offering
generic prayers for the sick. How could scientists possibly determine which of these
prayers, if any, are truly efficacious?
13. Not testable. If absolutely everything in the universe doubled in size--including all
rulers and other standards of measurement--there would be no way to detect the
difference.
Exercise 15.3
1. Pseudoscientific thinking. The arguer relies on an appeal to personal experience (I

tried it and it worked.) The herbal tea might have worked because of the placebo effect.
Alternatively the headache might have gone away by itself.
2. Pseudoscientific thinking. The prophecy is so vague that any number of historical

events could plausibly be interpreted as fulfilling it.
3. Pseudoscientific thinking. What reason do we have for thinking that any of these
claims are true? How could we verify that the original copy of the letter is in New
England or that a "Mr. Fairchild" died nine days after receiving the letter? Even if these
claims are true, why should we think the letter had anything to do with the good or bad
luck these individuals experienced? Chain letters are so common that, just by chance,
many people must encounter good or bad luck within days of receiving the letter. Finally,
the claim that you will receive "Good Luck" in the mail "in four days" is both vague and
ambiguous. It is vague because it is unclear what counts as good luck. It is ambiguous
because it is unclear whether "in four days" means "within four days" or "on the fourth
day."
4. Pseudoscientific thinking. The arguer is explaining away falsifying evidence.
5. The analogy is a poor one. When scientists disagree, they generally disagree about
matters on the frontiers of scientific knowledge, not about fundamentals. The
disagreements among psychics and other practitioners of pseudoscience tend to be much
deeper and more systemic.
6. On the contrary, mere coincidence is the best explanation of "precognitive" events such
as these. Just by chance, one would expect striking coincidences of this sort to be
157
reported occasionally. Moreover, there is a natural human tendency to remember

premonitions that turn out to be true and forget those that turn out to be false.
7. Pseudoscientific thinking. The graphologist is relying upon general, Barnum-type

language that applies to practically everybody.
8. Pseudoscientific thinking. The claim that nothing bad ever happens to a person unless
he or she has done something bad, either in this life or a previous life, is unfalsifiable.
9. Pseudoscientific thinking. The cardinal is ignoring falsifying evidence, is refusing to

engage in empirical research, and is dogmatically committed to a static worldview.
10. Pseudoscientific thinking. Parry is explaining away falsifying data.
11. Pseudoscientific thinking. Earl is explaining away falsifying data, and his claim that
aliens are much too advanced to ever be detected by us renders his claim unfalsifiable.
12. Pseudoscientific thinking. Given the way the arguer qualifies her claim, it's unclear
what possible evidence she would accept as counting against her claim that God always
answers prayers.
13. Pseudoscientific thinking. Its not surprising that dowsing sometimes works, given
that underground water is abundant. However, the only way to know whether dowsing
consistently works is to test it under controlled conditions.
14. This argument commits the fallacies of attacking the motive and ignoring falsifying
data. In fact, legions of independent scientists would jump at the chance to achieve
international renown by proving the validity of such a miracle cure, if there were any
reason for thinking that such a cure actually works.
15. Pseudoscientific thinking. Claims about the esoteric meaning[s] of music are not
scientifically testable.
Exercise 15.4
I.
Daily newspaper horoscopes are targeted at younger, less affluent, less educated
audiences. As you would expect, therefore, they rarely contain predictions or personality
profiles targeted at very young readers ("avoid finger-painting today") or senior citizens
("favorite singer: Englebert Humperdink").
II.
158
Students enjoy this exercise, and it can be done very quickly. To make it a fair test, it's
important that all twelve horoscopes contain genuine predictions. The person who
collects the horoscopes may need to consult several newspapers or astrology Web sites to
find suitable material.
Exercise 15.5
I.
After reading this section, most students readily agree that astrology is a pseudoscience.
You may need to play devil's advocate a bit to generate a good discussion.
II.
Here's one obvious way to conduct such a study: Check hospital maternity records at
large hospitals around the country to find unrelated persons born in the same hospital at
the same time on the same day. (Obviously, this would be an enormous chore, but in
principle it could be done.) Track down as many of these people as you can and ask them
to take the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or some other standard
personality test. Check to see if the time twins exhibit similar personality traits at rates
higher than one would expect by chance. Finally, check death records to see if there are
any nonchance correlations between deceased time twins' dates of death.
159
Appendix: Essays for Critical Analysis
Here are one readers standardizations of these arguments.
Essay 1
Congress Nears Choice: Protect Freedom or Stoke Anger?

USA Today
1. The three recent episodes of flag desecration are minor, rare and easily addressed by
local laws.
2. Thus, they hardly require the extraordinary act of amending the Constitution. (from 1)
3. The First Amendment is the reason Americans are free to say what they think.
4. [This freedom includes the right to desecrate the flag as a way of protesting and
expressing grievances.]
5. To limit this freedom by making flag desecration unconstitutional is to say that the
American right to freedom of expression is no longer as sacrosanct as it should be.
6. If Congress banned something as pathetic as flag desecration to score political points,
surely it would consider limiting other forms of unpopular speech, such as flying a flag
upside down, that are important, nuanced forms of political dissent.
7. Treating flag desecration as a minor criminal offense, as in the case of the Connecticut
flag burner, is sufficient.
8. The flag itself stands for a nation that deems individual liberties so important, it
tolerates unpopular minority opinion.
9. The major threat to the flag comes not from the occasional flag burning of Old Glory
but from those who would sacrifice the principles the flag represents.
10. [We should not sacrifice these important principles of freedom of expression.]
11. Therefore, Congress should not amend the Constitution to make flag burning
unconstitutional. (from 4-10)
160
Essay 2
Legal Steroids the Solution

Rick Hurd
1. Roger Clemens, like almost every modern athlete, has used performance enhancing
drugs.
2. The Mitchell report proves this beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Thus, baseball has never been more sick, and its players never more shad. (from 1-2)
4. The use of performance-enhancing drugs is a runaway fire.
5. The testers are the firemen desperately trying to catch up.
6. Thus, it is time to take a new approach. (from 4-5)
7. Seasons start in mid-February and can run as long as early November.
8. Fewer double-headers mean fewer days off.
9. A tem can play one game at night on the East Coast, then play early the next evening
on the West Coast.
10. Thus, the body is subject to punishment that didnt even exist 30 years ago. (From 7-
9)
11. Thus, performance enhancers have become necessary. (from 9-11)
12. It would seem the greater hazard would be to allow baseball to keep on keepin on.
13. Not allowing legal juicing but requiring players to prove their innocence by following
the cheaters or go through the back alleys to keep up seems to be cruel and unusual.
14. Therefore, its time for Major League Baseball to consider making performance-
enhancing drugs a welcome, and legal, part of its culture. (from 12-13)
Essay 3
Age 18 Isnt the Answer

USA Today
1. More than 100 college presidents claim that keeping the drinking age at 21 prevents
young adults from learning responsible drinking at home.
161
2. That when students arrive on campus, they cant drink sociably and moderately in bars
and restaurants, so they overindulge in dorm rooms and private houses.
3. Thus, the presidents argue that the drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 18.
(from 1-2)
4. But lowering the age to 18 would kick the problem down to the high school level,
where 18-year-olds would buy alcohol for younger friends an siblings who can pass for
18 with their own fake IDs.
5. Since 1984, the year Congress effectively set a national drinking age at 21 by
withholding highway money from any state with a lower age, an estimated 25,000 lives
have been saved.
6. After the drinking age rose from 18 to 21, traffic fatalities dropped by 16%.
7. Thus, when young people drink, traffic fatalities rise sharply. (from 4-6)
8. While higher drinking age does create enforcement headaches for college
administrators, by asking for a lower drinking age they are just trying to wash their hands
of the problem.
9. Officials at the University of Virginia used an informative campaign to significantly

drop alcohol-related incidents there without lowering the drinking age.
10. Therefore, the college presidents rather than passing the buck should likewise seek
better options and not advocate lowering the drinking age to 18. (from 7-9).
Essay 4
Opposing View: Law Makes Matters Worst

David Oxtoby
1. Americans under 21 are drinking in great numbers, drinking in secret, frequently

drinking to excess, too often drinking themselves into an emergency room.
2. Americans under 21 are doing this in spite of the most determined efforts of college
administrators across the country to prevent it.
3. They are doing this in defiance of the law.
4. [Thus, a change in the status quo is necessary.] (from 1-3)

162
5. Current drinking age laws force college-age drinking out of the open, where it can be
monitored and moderated, behind closed doors, where young people can put themselves
and others at even greater risk.
6. Recent years have shown a significant increase in binge drinking, leading to alcohol
poisoning and causing hundreds of deaths per year.
7. Thus, the truth is that current drinking laws are not merely failing our children; theyre
making matters worse.
8. An American student returning from a study-abroad semester in Spain reported that

students thee drank occasionally, unlike American students whom he said had an
obsession with alcohol.
9. An 18-year old can die for his country but cannot legally buy a glass of beer.
10. Therefore, this is a vital issue and although there are many factors to consider, we
might find that some form of lowered age, combined with effective education, could
reduce the drinking problems in America today.
17. Imploring people to eat better and exercise more has been the default approach to
obesity for years but that is a failed experiment.
18. Thus, the personal-responsibility argument is not helpful. (from 17)
19. The personal-responsibility is startling similar to the tobacco industrys efforts to

stave off legislative and regulatory interventions.
20. The nation tolerated personal-responsibility arguments from Big Tobacco for decades,
with disastrous results.
21. Thus, the personal-responsibility argument is a trap. (from 19-20)
22. Governments collude with industry when they shift attention from conditions
promoting poor diets to the individuals who consume them.
23. [Government has the responsibility to protect and promote the health of the people.]
24. Therefore, government should be doing everything it can to create conditions that
lead to healthy eating, support parents in raising healthy children, and make decisions in
the interest of public health rather than private profit. (from 10-23)
Essay 5
163
Why Parents Shouldnt Teach Their Kids to Believe in Santa Claus

David Kyle Johnson
1. Parents lie when they teach their kids to believe in Santa Claus.
2. Lying is immoral unless its justified by a very noble cause (e.g., saving someones
life).
3. Parents teach their kids to believe in Santa Claus because its fun to watch their kids
get excitedhardly a noble cause.
4. So, its immoral for parents to teach their kids to believe in Santa Claus. (from 1-3)
5. When kids find out that Santa is a myth, they often get mad at their parents for
deceiving them.
6. To perpetuate the Santa Claus myth, parents have to tell their kids to shut off their
brains and just believe.
7. Some kids are frightened by the idea of Santas secretive chimney entry.
8. So, its harmful for parents to teach their kids to believe in Santa Claus (from 5-7).
9. Therefore, parents should not teach their kids to believe in Santa Claus. (from 4 and 8)
Essay 6
Defending My Right to Claim My Steak in the Animal Kingdom

Jack Pytleski
1. Im going to die no matter what I eat.
2. I want to enjoy every minute of my allotted time on earth.
3. If given a choice between sitting around drooling in a personal care center or

checking out earlier from a massive heart attack, I would choose the latter.
4. I have a right to do as I please with my own body.
5. I have a constitutional right of privacy that gives me the right to eat the kinds of foods I
enjoy.
6. [Thus, contrary to one popular argument for vegetarianism, the fact that eating a
balanced vegetarian diet tends to be healthier than a meat-based diet is not a good reason
for me to switch to a vegetarian diet (from 1-5)].
164
7. I believe on faith that animals were put on earth to provide food, clothing and other
benefits to humans.
8. [Thus, contrary to a second popular argument for vegetarianism, animals have no right
not to be killed and eaten by humans (from 7)].
9. [Therefore, two popular arguments for vegetarianism the health benefits argument
and the animal rights argument do not provide good reasons for adopting a vegetarian
diet (from 6 and 8)].
Essay 7
New Immigration Laws Expose Downside of Getting Tough

USA Today
1. When Congress gave up trying to pass a balanced immigration law last year, it opened
the door for states, counties, and towns to write their own immigration laws.
2. Thus, the result has been a disquieting national experiment in handling illegal
immigration almost solely with arrest and deportation. (from 1)
3. Oklahoma, which has one of the toughest new laws, now bars illegal immigrants from
receiving state services.
4. It requires employers to verify that new workers are legal.
5. It gives people a way to sue companies that hire illegal immigrants.
6. It makes it a felony to transport, harbor, or conceal an illegal immigrant.
7. Thus, the law was meant to be harsh, and it is. (from 3-6)
8. Oklahoma Hispanic groups estimate that as many as 25,000 left the state after the law
was approved last year.
9. School attendance dropped, workers disappeared, church attendance shrank and Latino
businesses lost customers.
10. Thus, the law is undeniably effective (from 8-9)
11. The immigrants came not to rob banks but to improve their lives through hard work.
12. Yet families are uprooted, and parents are separated form their kids.
165
13. Thus, whats missing is simple humanitya recognition that the vast majority of
those affected lack any malicious intent. (from 11-12)
14. When spouses, parents or children are illegal, a relative van be placed at risk for
harboring them at home or transporting them to church.
15. There are persistent reports that police in some places target Hispanic drivers for
roadside stops and document checks.
16. Some citizens have taken to carrying passports or birth certificates to avoid being
jailed.
17. Thus, legal residents are hurt, too. (from 14-16)
18. Employers say theyre being asked to become immigrant police with imperfect tools.
19. A study in Oklahoma predicted that the law could cost the states economy more than
$1 billion a year.
20. A firm that specializes in finding new locations for businesses said some companies
have crossed Oklahoma off their lists.
21. Thus, by intent, the laws have hit businesses, which have scrambled to replace lost
workers. (from 18-20)
22. The nation doesnt want illegal immigrants, but it does want the cheap labor they
provide.
23. So it passes laws then doesnt pay to enforce them.
24. Thus, if theres a virtue in all this, it is to highlight the hypocrisy that has long been at
the heart of the ineffectual federal immigration law. (from 22-23)
25. President Bushs immigration bill would have toughened workplace enforcement with
a strong verification system and effective ID requirements.
26. It would have also acknowledged reality by fostering a temporary worker program
and providing a rigorous path to citizenship for the most qualified of the estimated 12
million illegal immigrants here.
27. Thus, President Bushs

immigration bill is still a worthwhile proposal. (from 25-26)
28. [Therefore, while harsh laws such as Oklahomas may be satisfying to those who
seethe over illegal immigration, they have many downsides and demonstrate the need for
166
comprehensive immigration reform like that which President Bush proposed.] (from 13,
17, 21, 24, and 27)
167
Note: The following treatment of the counterexample method of proving invalidity

originally appeared in the first edition of Critical Thinking: A Students Introduction. It
was cut for reasons of economy, but here, through the magic of cyberspace, it is restored
for instructors wholike uslamented its excision.
TESTING FOR VALIDITY
Deciding whether an argument is valid or not can sometimes be a tricky business. In this
section we present an informal three-part test that can be used to test arguments for
validity. We call it the Three Cs test.
The Three Cs Test for Validity
Step 1: Check to see whether the premises are actually true and the conclusion is
actually false. If they are, then the argument is invalid. If they are not, or if you cant
determine whether the premises and conclusion are actually true or false, then go to
Step 2.
Step 2: See if you can conceive a possible scenario in which the premises would be
true and the conclusion false. If you can, then the argument is invalid. If you cant, and
its not obvious that the conclusion follows validly from the premises, then go to Step
3.
Step 3:Try to construct a counterexamplea special kind of parallel argumentthat

proves that the argument is invalid. If you can construct such a counterexample, then
the argument is invalid. If you cant, then its usually safe to conclude that the
argument is valid.
Lets look at each of these steps in turn.
Step 1 A valid argument is an argument in which its impossible for the conclusion to be
false if the premises are true. Thus, the simplest test for validity is to check whether the
premises are actually true and the conclusion is actually false. If they are, then the
argument is invalid. Example:
168
If Michael Jordan was the worlds greatest baseball player, then he was a great
athlete.
Michael Jordan was a great athlete.
Therefore, Michael Jordan was the worlds greatest baseball player.
Here the two premises are in fact true and the conclusion is in fact false. Thus, we know
immediately that the argument is invalid.
Unfortunately, since invalid arguments can have any combination of truth or
falsity and valid arguments can have any combination except true premises and a false
conclusion, Step 1 tells us nothing about the validity or invalidity of arguments that do
not have the particular combination true premises and false conclusion. For such
arguments, we must turn to Step 2.
Step 2 Step 2 involves a kind of thought experiment. Since a valid argument is an

argument in which its impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true,
we can show that an argument is invalid if we can imagine any logically possible
circumstances in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false. An example:
Professor Butterfingers was working on a hydrogen bomb when it accidentally

exploded in his face.
Therefore, Professor Butterfingers is dead.
Can we imagine any situation, however unlikely or improbable, in which the

premise of this argument is true and the conclusion is false? Sure. Perhaps Professor
Butterfingers is actually an indestructible robot in disguise. Or maybe some orbiting
extraterrestrials decide to beam him up to their spacecraft just as the bomb explodes. Lots
of things could conceivably happen that would cause the premise to be true and the
conclusion false. Thus, the conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. Hence,
the argument is not deductively valid.
A second example:
169
Millions of Americans are Democrats.

Millions of Americans are blondes.
Therefore, at least some American Democrats must be blondes.
Here again its not difficult to imagine circumstances in which the premises are
true and the conclusion is false. (Imagine a possible world, for instance, in which, for
some strange reason, its illegal for blondes to be Democrats.) The mere fact that we can
imagine such a world shows that the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the
premises.
Unfortunately, thought experiments of this kind only work when one can clearly
imagine a set of circumstances in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is
false. Sometimes, however, we encounter arguments (e.g. logically complex arguments)
when its difficult to do this. For arguments of this sort, we must turn to Step 3.
Step 3 Step 3 also involves a kind of thought experiment, but one that is slightly
more elaborate than the kind of thought experiment described in Step 2. In Step 2 we ask:
Is there any conceivable way that this particular argument could have all true premises
and a false conclusion? In Step 3 we ask: Is there any conceivable way that any argument
with this particular logical pattern could have all true premises and a false conclusion? If
the answer to either question is yes, then the argument is invalid.
Step 3 involves use of a procedure known as the counterexample method of
proving invalidity. This method requires some ingenuity, but is basically very simple
once you get the hang of it. The method involves two steps:
(1) Determine the logical pattern, or form, of the argument that youre testing for
invalidity, using letters (A,B,C, etc.) to represent the various terms in the
argument.
170
(2) Construct a second argument that has exactly the same form as the argument
youre testing, but where the second argument has premises that are obviously
true and a conclusion that is obviously false.
The method works because with a valid argument you can never have true
premises and a false conclusion. Thus, any time you find an argument that has true
premises and a false conclusion, you know immediately that it is invalid. And because
validity is determined by the logical form of an argument rather than by the actual truth or
falsity of the premises and conclusion, you also know immediately that any argument that
has that form must also be invalid. Thus, if you can find just one counterexample (i.e.,
one argument of that form that has all true premises and a false conclusion), then you can
prove that all arguments that have that form are invalid.
Lets now apply the counterexample method to a few simple examples. Suppose
we want to determine whether the following argument is valid or invalid:
Example 1: Some Republicans are conservatives, and some

Republicans are pro-choice. So, some conservatives are
pro-choice.
The first step in the counterexample method is to determine the logical form of
the argument. To make sure that we are representing the form of the argument correctly, it
is helpful if we begin by numbering the steps in the argument, with the conclusion stated
last. We thus get:
1. Some Republicans are conservatives.

2. Some Republicans are pro-choice.
3. Therefore, some conservatives are pro-choice.
(Note that in logic some always means at least one, i.e. some and perhaps
all. Some never means some but not all. Thus, in logic, when we say Some dogs
171
are animals we mean At least one dog is an animal (which is true), not Some, but not
all, dogs are animals (which is false).)
Next, we assign letters to represent the various terms in the argument. Using As
to represent Republicans, Bs to represent conservatives, and Cs to represent
people who are pro-choice, what we get is:
1. Some As are Bs.

2. Some As are Cs.
3. Therefore, some Bs are Cs.
This is the logical form of the argument in Example 1. Having determined this
form, we have completed the first step of the counterexample method.
The second step in the counterexample method involves attempting to construct a
second argument that has exactly the same form as our argument being tested, but which
(unlike the first) has obviously true premises and an obviously false conclusion. With
most invalid argument forms, it is possible to construct such a counterexample using a
few stock terms, such as dogs, cats, animals, men, women, people, apples,
pears, and fruit. Using the terms animals as a substitute for As, dogs as a
substitute for Bs, and cats as a substitute for Cs, we can construct an argument that
has the same form as the argument in Example 1, but which has clearly true premises and
a clearly false conclusion:
1. Some animals are dogs. (true)

2. Some animals are cats. (true)
3. Therefore, some dogs are cats. (false)
We have thus constructed a counterexample to the argument in Example 1. Other

counterexamples that would work equally well include:
1. Some fruits are apples. (true)

2. Some fruits are pears. (true)
172
3. Therefore, some apples are pears. (false)
1. Some politicians are Democrats. (true)

2. Some politicians are Republicans. (true)
3. Therefore, some Democrats are Republicans. (false)
Lets now try another example:
Example 2: If God exists, then life has meaning. Hence, God does exist,
since life has meaning.
First, we begin by numbering the premises and the conclusion.
1. If God exists, then life has meaning.

2. Life has meaning.
3. Therefore, God exists.
We next identify the form of the argument. Using A to represent the statement
God exists, and B to represent the statement Life has meaning we get:
1. If A then B.
2. B
3. Therefore, A.
Finally, attempt to find an argument that has exactly the same form, but one that
has obviously true premises and an obviously false conclusion.
For starters, we might try:
1. If Lassie is a dog, then Lassie is an animal. (true)

2. Lassie is an animal. (true)
173
3. Therefore, Lassie is a dog. (true)
But this wont work, because we need a false conclusion in order to get a good
counterexample.
Next, we might try:
1. If JFK was killed by a lone assassin, then JFK is dead. (true)

2. JFK is dead. (true)
3. Therefore, JFK was killed by a lone assassin. (true??false??)
But this wont work either, because for an effective counterexample we need a
conclusion that is obviously false (i.e., one that is known to be false by practically
everyone), and it is far from obviously false that JFK was killed by a lone assassin. So,
back to the drawing board one more time:
1. If Kansas City is in California, then Kansas City is in the United States. (true)
2. Kansas City is in the United States. (true)
3. Therefore, Kansas City is in California. (false)
Bingo! This gives us the counterexample were looking for. Now weve proven
that Example 2 does not have a valid argument form, and thus is invalid. Another
counterexample might be.
1. If George Washington died in a car crash, then George Washington is dead.

(true)
2. George Washington is dead. (true)
3. Therefore, George Washington died in a car crash. (false)
A third and final example:

174
Example 3: Some senators are Republicans. Hence, some Republicans

are politicians, since all senators are politicians.
First, we number the premises and the conclusion:
1. Some senators are Republicans.

2. All senators are politicians.
3. Therefore, some Republicans are politicians.
Next, we identify the form of the argument:
1. Some As are Bs.

2. All As are Cs.
3. Therefore, some Bs are Cs.
Finally, we try to create a counterexample. First, we might try:
1. Some dogs are animals. (true)

2. All dogs are mammals. (true)
3. Therefore, some animals are mammals. (true)
But this wont work, since the conclusion is true. Next, we might try:
1. Some apples are red. (true)

2. All apples are fruits. (true)
3. Therefore, some red things are fruits. (true)
But this wont work either, since again the conclusion is true. Finally, we might try:
1. Some students love jazz. (true)

2. All students love hot wings. (false)
175
3. Therefore, some people who love jazz are people who like hot wings. (true)
But this fails, too, because not only is the conclusion true, but also one of the premises is
false. At this point we might begin to suspect that the reason we cant find a
counterexample is that there is no counterexample to be found, because the blessed thing
is valid. And this is in fact the case. One could work until Doomsday trying to come up
with a counterexample to the argument in Example 3 and never succeed, since the form
of the argument is such that it guarantees a true conclusion if you plug in true premises.
And this raises the urgent question: At what point should you throw in the towel? At what
point is it safe to conclude that the reason you cant find a good counterexample to a
particular argument is not that you have been insufficiently imaginative or persevering in
your attempts, but rather that the argument is simply valid?
Alas, there is no such perfect security with the counterexample method. As a rule,
however, its generally safe to assume after three or four unsuccessful tries that no
counterexample can be found. On exams, however, the rule is always: Try as many
attempted counterexamples at time permits.
EXERCISE
Use the counterexample method to determine whether the following argument forms are
valid or invalid.
1. All Albanians are beer-drinkers. Therefore, since all Catalonians are beer-drinkers, all
Albanians are Catalonians.
2. If Josef is an anarchist, then hes a Bolshevik. Hence, Josef is not a Bolshevik, since
hes not an anarchist.
3. No ales are brandies. Some ales are not champagnes. Therefore, some champagnes are
not brandies.
176
4. If Ophelia is an antinomian, then shes a backslider. Hence, since Ophelia is not a

backslider, shes not an antinomian.
5. Allen is a big spender, since Allen is a Californian, and all Californians are big
spenders.
6. If Alice is a Presbyterian, then she believes in God. Hence, Alice is a Presbyterian,

since she believes in God.
7. No Argentinians are Bolivians. Therefore, some Cubans are not Bolivians, since some
Argentinians are not Cubans.
8. Some animals are brown. Some animals are cows. So, some animals are brown cows.
9. No Alsatians are Burgundians. Some Channel-watchers are not Alsatians. So, some
Burgundians are not Channel-watchers.
10. All aphids are bugs. Some aphids are cranky. So, some cranky things are not bugs.
11. No apple-pickers are broncobusters. Some broncobusters are cellists. So, some cellists
are apple-pickers.
12. No artichokes are carrots, because no artichokes are beets, and no carrots are beets.

Key To All Exercises

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Key To All Exercises

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Key To All Exercises

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What exercises do instructors generally do in Chapter 1?

What exercises do instructors generally do in Chapter 1?

What is the purpose of Exercise 1.2?

What is the purpose of Exercise 1.2?

Exercise Answers and Teaching Tips

Chapter 1: Introduction to Critical Thinking

You are a member of Culture C and a moral relativist.

1. What can you consistently believe with regard to Culture A?

2. What can you consistently believe with regard to Culture B?

3. What can you consistently do with regard to Culture A?

4. What can you consistently do with regard to Culture B?

Answer: You cannot do anything to interfere with Culture Bs conquest of Culture A.

Main Lesson of Case 1:

You are a member of Culture B and a moral relativist.

2. What can you consistently believe with regard to Culture A?

3. What can you consistently believe with regard to Culture B?

4. What can you consistently do with regard to Culture A?

5. What can you consistently do with regard to Culture B?

Main Lessons of Case 2:

1. Moral relativism may commit us to certain beliefs or practices that, intuitively,

You are a member of Culture B, a moral relativist, and a member of sub-culture

2. Is there any logical difficulty in being a relativist and belonging to Culture B?

4. What can you consistently do with regard to Culture A and Culture B?

5. If someday the Betas become the majority sub-culture in Culture B, and

Intellectual humility: Having a consciousness of the limits of one's knowledge,

Fair-mindedness: Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike,

Intellectual perseverance: Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual

Here are two dictionary definitions of open-mindedness: "Having or showing

Chapter 2: Recognizing Arguments

6. Nonstatement (suggestion or exhortation)

1. Premise: Light takes time to reach our eyes.

Conclusion: All that we see really existed in the past.

2. Premise 1: Life changes when you least expect it to.

7. Premise: Science is based on experiment, on a willingness to challenge old

9. Premise 1: Without symbols, no intellectual advance is possible.

18. Premise 1: The Alaska bears are a distinct species.

1. Premise 1: Man knows that he is dying.

3. Premise 1: I need a man.

4. Premise 1: Moral responsibility presupposes free-will.

5. Premise 1: Our faith comes in moments.

6. Premise 1: Travel articles appear in publications that sell large, expensive

8. Premise 1: Philosophy is dangerous whenever it is taken seriously.

11. Premise 1: Each of us has an intellectual dimension to his existence.

16. Premise 1: Those who develop the first-thing-in-the-morning routine tend to be

27. Nonargument (unsupported assertion)

Chapter 3: Basic Logical Concepts

2. Adler, with the revolver

3. Windibank, with the rope, on the downs

1. Mike: Grape juice

1. Deductive (Argument based on mathematics; also, the conclusion follows necessarily

4. Deductive (Argument by elimination; also, the conclusion follows necessarily from

10. Inductive (Argument from authority; also, a prediction; also, probably is an

12. Deductive (The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.)

15. Inductive (Inductive generalization; also, probably is an induction indicator word;

21. Deductive. (The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.)

25. Deductive (Argument based on mathematics; also, conclusion follows necessarily

1. Vague and overgeneral.

1. Vague and overgeneral (not to mention ungrammatical). Terms such as

2. Ambiguous because of unclear pronoun references. It could refer to