Exercise 2.

Part I. Note: On some of the arguments below, I’ve taken the liberty of identifying some hidden
inferential assumptions. On other arguments I’ve simply analyzed the argument using the
statements present in the exercise example. See if you are able to identify some of the other
missing premises in those arguments where this would help to clarify the author’s meaning.

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.

Premise 2: The future is uncertain. (This statement is redundant with the first and can
probably be excluded from the analysis.)
Conclusion: [One ought to] seize this day, seize this moment, and make the most of it.

3. Premise: [Your reputation] shall continue with thee, more than a thousand treasures
precious and great.
Conclusion: You should take care of your good name (“good name” is best interpreted as
“reputation”).

4. Premise : Faith means believing a proposition when there is no good reason for believing
it.
Premise 2: (There is an unstated premise, i.e. inferential assumption, in this argument
that reads, “It is wrong to believe a proposition when there is no good reason for
believing it.”)
Conclusion: Faith is a vice.

5. Premise: [If you are not careful when lying] you are nearly sure to get caught.
Premise 2: (There is an unstated premise, i.e. inferential assumption, in this argument
that reads, “You don’t want to be caught lying.”)
Conclusion: [You should 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.
Premise 2: (There is an unstated premise, i.e. inferential assumption, in this argument
that reads, “If you can’t prove any one religion, it must be everyone’s right to choose for
themselves which religion to accept.”)
Conclusion: Religious freedom is a human right.

7. Premise1: Science is based on experiment.

Premise 2: Science is based on a willingness to challenge old dogma.
Premise 3: Science is based 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: [You should] not play your sound system loudly.

9. Premise 1: There are controversies about vegetarianism and scientific experiments

involving live animals.
Conclusion: Our attitudes toward creatures that are conscious and capable of
experiencing sensation like pain and pleasure are importantly different from our attitudes
toward things lacking such capacities, mere chunks of matter or insentient plants.

10. Premise: On average, the lowest animal is a lot nicer and kinder than most of the human
beings that inhabit the earth.
Premise 2: (There is an unstated premise, i.e. inferential assumption, in this argument
that reads, “Kindness is an indicator that a being has a soul.”)
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.

12. Premise: When senility hit you, you won't know it.
Conclusion: [You ought not to] 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 : The better your opponent, the better you have to be.
Conclusion: you should always honor your opponent.

15. This problem is somewhat ambiguous and there is some question as to whether it should
be properly treated as an argument. It appears to entail only one claim, the purpose of
which is to identify distinct objections to drunkenness. Also, the author does not say so,
but their argument is clearly aimed at regular or habitual drinking, not occasional or
infrequent drunkenness. So, if it is intended to serve an argumentative function, then it
would best be analyzed as follows:

Premise 1: [Habitual] drunkenness causes physical deterioration.

Premise 2: [Habitual] drunkenness undermines the capacity of reason which leads to
disastrous social consequences (e.g. fitness for work and supporting one’s family).
Conclusion: [Habitual] drunkenness is evil.

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 children–that's all of us–away from His
loving arms.
Conclusion: [We ought not to] be angry at God when bad things happen.
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. This argument requires a significant the reader to paraphrase some statements in order
to extract the author’s intended meaning.
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 [acceptable that] grizzlies survive only in Canada and Alaska.
Alternative Conclusion: [We should demand that policy change to preserve and protect
grizzly populations in the northern U.S. States].

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: [If you used the breast pocket on your pajamas as a breast pocket, it might cause
you serious injury.]
Conclusion: You don't need a breast pocket on your pajamas.