7/25/2019 Phil105g Exam Preparations - Auckland uni
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phil105g-exam-preparations-auckland-uni 1/9
Philosophy 105/105G – Thursday 5th, 2.15pmMultichoice exam – section A 10qs 1 mark each, section B 10qs 2
marks each, section C 10qs 3 marks each, section D 10qs 4 marks
each
Part 1 – the basics
Critical thinkin
• Critical thinking is the systematic ealuation or !ormulation o!
"elie!s or statements "y rational stan#ar#s
• $tatements that su%%ort the conclusion are calle# %remises,
taken together these are arguments – this %rocess o!
reasoning is calle# in!erence
•
&hat is not a %remise' – (uestions or comman#s• &hat is not an argument' )x%lanations – these are statements
asserting *hy or ho* something is the case
• +ational illusions – situations *here most %eo%le come to the
*rong concl, "ut eentually get the right concl
!bstacles to critical thinkin that arise because o" how #e
think
• ccurs #ue to %sychological !actors
• $el!-intereste# thinking – *hen things get %ersonal, emotional
inestment – aoi# "y ensuring inclusion o! all ei#ence .#on/t
"e selectie
• rou% %ressure – eg %eer %ressure, a%%eals to %o%ularity,
a%%eal to common %ractice can result in narro* min#e#ness –
aoi# "y %ro%ortioning acce%tance o! a claim to the strength
o! the reasons
• )gocentrism – i#ea that your o*n kno*le#ge or ex%erience
counts more than others .eg Dunning-ruger – %eo%le rate
themseles a"oe aerage *hen they are "elo* – aoi# "y
"eing a*are an# charita"le
• Conrmation5selection "ias – only seeking conrming
ei#ence an# ignoring any ei#ence against you, results in
!ooling onesel! – aoi# "y "eing a*are an# looking "eyon#
striking or memora"le ei#ence
!bstacles to critical thinkin that arise because o" what #e
think
• ccurs #ue to our %hiloso%hical i#eas an# *orl#ie*
• +elatiism – "elie! that "elie!s are coherent, or that conincingan# agreement is "est – ho*eer, relatiism can/t ca%ture our
1
7/25/2019 Phil105g Exam Preparations - Auckland uni
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phil105g-exam-preparations-auckland-uni 2/9
actual %ractices an# "elie!s .eg6 *e can "e mistaken, *e can
#isagree
• 7y%es o! relatiism – cultural .culture, su"8ectie .%erson,
social .society – results in su"8ectie !allacy, societal
in!alli"ility• $ke%ticism – *e kno* much less than *e think *e #o .or
nothing at all "ecause kno*le#ge requires certainty, results
in %hiloso%hical ske%ticism
• Dee% #isagreements – %ro"lems seem irresola"le .!acts are
#i9cult to esta"lish or com%licate# – most are resola"le *ith
a rational argument
• Bur#en o! %roo! – in critical thinking *e look !or goo# reasons
to think, a #eman# !or %roo! is o!ten unreasona"le
$rument "orms
• De#uctie – inten#e# to
%roi#e logically conclusive
su%%ort – i! it succee#s in
%roi#ing logical su%%ort it is
ali#5soun#, i! not .i! the concl
#oes not logically !ollo* !rom
the %remises it is inali#
• :ali#5soun# #e#uctie
arguments – these argumentsare truth preserving "ecause o! the guarantee o! truth in the
%remises an# concl .no counter exam%les eer – note; counter
exam%les can "e inali# or !alse
• <n#uctie – inten#e# to %roi#e probable su%%ort – i! it
succee#s in %roi#ing %ro"a"le logical su%%ort it is
strong5cogent, i! not it is *eak
• 7he structure o! an in#uctie argument cannot guarantee the
concl is true i! the %remises are true, "ut it can "e ren#ere#
%ro"a"le an# *orthy
Charity
• Al*ays analyse the strongest !orm o! an argument an# re%air
minor =a*s
• >ix %oor choices o! *or#s, a## missing ste%s, treat others as
intelligent, gie the "enet o! the #ou"t, aoi#
misinter%retation – "asically #on/t "e a #ick
• &hy' – ?ou *ant to make a "etter argument, you are "etter
o@ attacking a strong ersion o! the counter-argument, you*ant a quality #e"ate
2
7/25/2019 Phil105g Exam Preparations - Auckland uni
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phil105g-exam-preparations-auckland-uni 3/9
• $u%%resse# %remises an# #isguise# conclusions – search !or
%remises or conclusions that are not ex%licitly inclu#e#, an#
make them ex%licit an# ali#
• <m%licit %remises – search !or a cre#i"le %remise to !urnish the
link "et*een %remise5s an# concl
%iarammin aruments
n#erline in#icator *or#s an# num"er the statements, n#
the concl an# #ra* a *ay line un#er it, locate the %remises
an# un#erline them, cross out extra material
Dra* the #iagram, connecting %remises an# conclusions *ith
arro*s sho*ing logical connections .inclu#e "oth #e%en#ent
an# in#e%en#ent %remises
Premises
• <n#e%en#ent %remises – o@er su%%ort *ithout hel% !rom other
%remises
• 7o sho* an in#e%en#ent argument is "a#, you nee# to sho*
that each %remise on its o*n !ails to %roi#e enough su%%ort
!or the concl
• De%en#ent %remises – %remises rely on each other .i! a
%remise is remoe# it un#ermines the rest o! the su%%ort
• 7o sho* a #e%en#ent argument is "a#, you nee# to sho* that
all #e%en#ent %remises together #o not %roi#e enough
su%%ort !or the concl
&easonin – trustin and doubtin claims
• oo# reasons to trust a claim – it/s "ase# on %ersonal
ex%erience or ex%ert o%inion – only trust i! there/s no goo#
reason to #ou"t
• oo# reasons to #ou"t a claim – i! it con=icts *ith "ackgroun#
in!o .*ell-su%%orte# "elie!s that in!orm our "ehaiour, i! it
con=icts *ith other claims *e hae goo# reason to acce%t .eg6
ex%ert o%inion, *hen ex%erts #isagree a"out it, *hen the
claim is "y ne*s re%orts or a#s
• De!ence against mislea#ing claims – use reasona"le
ske%ticism an# a critical a%%roach .look !or slanting or !alse
em%hasis, examine resources an# !acts
• <! there is a claim *e can neither acce%t nor re8ect, *e shoul#
%ro%ortion our "elie! to the ei#ence
Part 2 – "allacies and persuaders
3
7/25/2019 Phil105g Exam Preparations - Auckland uni
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phil105g-exam-preparations-auckland-uni 4/9
'ormal "allacies
• Antece#ent – the rst statement in a con#itional %remise .i!/
• Consequent – the secon# statement in a %remise .then/
•
A9rming the antece#ent5%onens .ali# – i! x, then y6 6 7here!ore, y6
• Denying the consequent5tollens .ali# – i! x, then y6 Eot y6
7here!ore, not x6
• Fy%othetical syllogism .ali# – i! x, then y6 <! y, then G6
7here!ore, i! x, then G
• A9rming the consequent .inali# – i! x, then y6 ?6 7here!ore, x6
• Denying the antece#ent .inali# – i! x, then ?6 Eot x6
7here!ore, not y6
• Dis8unctie syllogism .inali# – either x or y6 Eot y6 7here!ore,
not x6
(n"ormal "allacies – irrele)ant premises *premises don+t
relate to the concl
• enetic !allacy – arguing that a claim is 7 or > solely "ecause
o! it/s origin
• Com%osition – arguing that *hat is 7 o! the %arts must "e 7 o!
the *hole
• Diision – arguing that *hat is 7 o! the *hole must "e 7 o! the
%arts• 7u quoque – re8ecting claims "5c arguer !ails to %ractice *hat
they %reach
• +e# herring – #eli"erately raising an irreleant issue
• $tra* man – #istorting, *eakening, or oersim%li!ying a
%osition so it can "e easily attacke#
• 7*o *rongs make a right – arguing that #oing something
morally *rong is 8ustie# "ecause someone else has #one the
same5similar thing
•
)quiocation – using a *or# in t*o #i@erent senses• A%%eal to the %erson – attacking the %erson rather than the
claim itsel!
• A%%eal to %o%ularity – arguing truth merely "ecause lots o!
%eo%le "eliee it
• A%%eal to authority – arguing truth "ecause an authoritatie
%erson says it is
• A%%eal to tra#ition – arguing truth "ecause it/s %art o! a
tra#ition
• A%%eal to ignorance – arguing that a lack o! ei#ence %roes
something
4
7/25/2019 Phil105g Exam Preparations - Auckland uni
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phil105g-exam-preparations-auckland-uni 5/9
• A%%eal to emotion – the use o! emotions as %remises to
arouse !eelings .eg6 a%%eal to %ity, a%%le %olishing5=attery,
scare tactics
(n"ormal "allacies – unacceptable premises *premises don+trelate stronly enouh to the concl
• Begging the question – esta"lish the concl "y using that concl
as a %remise
• >alse #ilemma – asserting that there are only t*o alternaties
to consi#er *hen there are actually more than t*o
• Decision-%oint !allacy .$orites %ara#ox – arguing that "ecause
a #istinction cannot "e #ra*n at any %oint, then there are no
#i@erences in the %rocess
• $li%%ery slo%e – arguing *ithout goo# reasons that taking a
%articular ste% ineita"ly lea#s to a !urther un#esira"le ste%
• Fasty generaliGation – ina#equate sam%le siGe to #ra* concl
a"out a grou%
• >aulty analogy – the things "eing com%are# are not su9ciently
similar
(n"ormal "allacies – rhetorical persuasion
• <nnuen#o – suggesting something #enigrating *ithout
ex%licitly stating it
• )u%hemisms 5 #ys%hemisms – *or#s use# to coney %os or
neu attitu#es in %lace o! neg ones 5 *or#s use# to coney neg
attitu#es in %lace o! %os or neu
• $tereoty%ing – un*arrante# concl or generaliGation a"out a
grou%
• +i#icule – use o! #erision, sarcasm or mockery to #is%arage a
%erson or i#ea
Part - – aruments
%educti)e reasonin – propositional loic *truth tables
• Deals *ith logical relationshi%s among statements, #i! ty%es o!
connecties
• Con8unction .H5an# – t*o sim%le to !orm one com%oun#,
con8unct com%onents – "oth nee# to "e 7 !or the *hole
con8unction to "e 7
• Dis8unction .:5or – #is8unct com%onents – only one nee#s to
"e 7 !or the *hole #is8unction to "e 7
• Eegation .I5not – the #enial o! a statement, the I sym"olin#icates the reersal o! the statement/s truth-alue – i! a
J
7/25/2019 Phil105g Exam Preparations - Auckland uni
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phil105g-exam-preparations-auckland-uni 6/9
statement "ecomes >, an > statement "ecomes 7 .note; "e
*ary o! #ou"le negaties
• Con#itional .-K5i!-then – i! x, then y – i! x is 7 an# y is > then
the statement is >, other*ise it is 7
Con8unction #is8unction negation con#itional
Checking !or ali#ity – #ou"le check i! any circumstances o! the
truth ta"le hae any a@airs that hae 7 %remises an# a > concl,
*hich *oul# then mean the argument is inali#
%educti)e reasonin – cateorical loic
• Deals *ith the relationshi% "et*een the su"8ect an# the
%re#icate
• Categorical statements – make sim%le assertions a"out
categories o! things, ary in characteristic o! quality
.a9rmatie or negatie
• (uantier .quantity – uniersal or %articular -K su"8ect term
-K co%ula .linking *or# – are or are not -K %re#icate term• A)< system !or !orms – all x are y L uni a9rm .A, no x are y
L uni neg .), some x are y L %artic a9rm ., some x are
not y L %artic neg .
7ranslating statements – i#enti!y the terms an# re*or# to
stan#ar# !orm
:enn #iagrams – x in#icator, the area *here the circles
oerla% in#icate that "oth x an# y are %resent, the sha#e#
area means the area is em%ty – note; enn #iagrams only
#escri"e situations *here the %remises are true
Categorical syllogisms – three categorical statements .t*o
%remises an# a concl that are structurally linke# – mi##le
term a%%ears once in each %remise, ma8or term a%%ears in
one %remise .ma8or %remise an# concl .%re#icate, minor
term in other %remise an# concl – check ali#ity *ith a 3-circle
enn #iagram
(nducti)e reasonin – enumerati)e, analoical and causal
induction
7/25/2019 Phil105g Exam Preparations - Auckland uni
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phil105g-exam-preparations-auckland-uni 7/9
• )numeratie – argument a"out .releant %ro%erty some
.%ro%ortional quantier mem"ers o! a grou% .sam%le to a
generaliGation a"out the entire grou% .target – can result in
hasty generaliGation or non-re%resentatie "iase# sam%le –
the ariation "et*een the alues !rom the sam%le an# !romthe *hole grou% is calle# the margin o! error .higher Mo) L
*eaker concl L *eaker argument
• Analogical – since t*o or more things are similar in some
res%ect, they must "e similar in !urther res%ect – ealuate
accor#ing to num"er o! releant similarities5#issimilarities an#
#iersity among the cases
• Causal – argument *ith a causal claim in the concl – N$ Mills
metho# o! agreement .one !actor o! occurrence is common L
cause an# metho# o! #i@erence .!actor %resent an# not
%resent at releant times L cause – errors incl misi#enti!ying
or oerlooking releant causal !actors, or con!using cause *ith
coinci#ence or or#er – crucial to i#enti!y necessary con#itions
.require# an# su9cient con#itions .guarantee#
Part – eplanations
(n"erence to the best eplanation *( – inducti)e, not
stron
• Deci#ing the "est ex%lanation !or a situation "y reasoning
!rom %remises
• sually a"#uctie reasoning – "ack*ar#s reasoning .e@ect to
cause
• <n!erence to AE ex%lanation – %remises state a %henomenon
has occurre#, an# concl is a hy%othesis a"out ho* or *hy that
%henomenon occurre#
• <n!erence to the B)$7 ex%lanation – states that a %henomenon
has occurre#, lists arious hy%otheses !or ho* or *hy,
#emonstrates that one is most likely true, an# conclu#es thatthe chosen hy%othesis is true
• +ial conclusions – ans*ers that com%ete to "e the "est
ex%lanation – #eci#e *hich "y examining the strength o! the
su%%ort .#e%en#ing on the context an# make 8u#gements
• Eon-trace #ata .E7D – makes one or more rial seem
stronger, they #on/t ex%lain anything "ut they make o%%osing
#ata seem less likely
• Oots o! issues *ith <B) .easy to !ool yoursel!, aries "ase# on
starting "elie!s, some ans*ers rule# out imme#iately, "ut*e/e got nothing "etter ;
P
7/25/2019 Phil105g Exam Preparations - Auckland uni
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phil105g-exam-preparations-auckland-uni 8/9
Consistency
• <nternal consistency – !ree o! contra#ictions *ithin itsel! – logic
says a theory lacking <C %re#icts eerything is true
•
Eote; internally inconsistent theories can "e ok i! there isnothing "etter
• )xternal consistency – consistent *ith #ata an# other
su%%orting theories – logic says a theory lacking )C can/t "e
true i! the #ata is
Criteria o" adeuacy *to 3ude plausibility in relation to
competin theories
• 7esta"ility – is there some *ay to #etermine the truth o! a
theory'• >ruit!ulness – ho* many noel %re#ictions are ma#e'
• $co%e – ho* many #ierse %henomena are ex%laine#'
• $im%licity – ho* many assum%tions are ma#e' Fo* easy is it
to un#erstan#'
• Conseratism – ho* *ell #oes the theory t *ith existing
kno*le#ge'
Testin theories – the T4T "ormula
• 1 state the 7heory an# check !or consistency
• 2 assess the )i#ence !or the theory
• 3 $crutiniGe alternatie theories
• 4 7est the theories *ith the criteria !or a#equacy
Part 5 – applyin critical thinkin
4cience
• $cience seeks kno*le#ge an# un#erstan#ing – it is not a
*orl#ie*
• Qseu#o-science – i#eas that are %resente# as science "ut
#on/t !ollo* the scientic metho# – results in "elie! in
authority, unre%eata"le ex%eriments, han#%icke# exam%les,
un*illingness to test, #isregar# o! re!uting in!o
• 7he scientic metho# – i#enti!y the %ro"lem, #eise a
hy%othesis .must "e !alsia"le, #erie a test im%lication an#
%er!orm the test .test must "e in#e%en#ently re%lica"le,
acce%t or re8ect the hy%othesis
• 7esting an# 8u#ging scientic theories – to minimiGe errors,
scientist uses control grou%s, make stu#ies #ou"le "lin#,
R
7/25/2019 Phil105g Exam Preparations - Auckland uni
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phil105g-exam-preparations-auckland-uni 9/9
inclu#e %lace"os, an# seek re%lication o! their *ork – 8u#ge
"ase# on the criteria o! a#equacy
• $cience utiliGes <B) to assess *eir# theories an# common
%lace ex%lanations
• Mistakes *ith *eir# theories – *anting to "eliee, !ailure o!
imagination, in!alli"ility o! senses, logical s6 %hysical,
tra#ition, s%ecial status
• Common mistake in science – !orgetting that *e shoul#n/t
acce%t ei#ence %roi#e# "y %ersonal ex%erience i! *e hae
goo# reason to #ou"t it
orality and la#
• )thical theories – meta-ethics enquires a"out the o"8ectiity or
su"8ectiity o! our moral 8u#gements normatie ethics
#etermines *hat makes actions right or *rong a%%lie# ethics
a%%lies morality to real-li!e %ro"lems
• Moral statements – statement asserting that an action is right
or *rong
• +easons !or moral statements – utilitarianism .moral
righteousness achiees ha%%iness !or eeryone, #eontology
.con!orming to rules, irtue5ethics, egoism, su"8ectiism,
relatiism .culture
• Moral arguments – stan#ar# moral arguments hae at least
one %remise that asserts an im%licit an# general moral%rinci%le, at least one %remise that is a non-moral claim .these
#o not assert right or *rong, they 8ust #escri"e a state o!
a@airs, an# a concl that is a moral statement
• Eote; moral arguments can "e #e#uctie or in#uctie, "ut
treat as #e#uctie, then su%%ly %lausi"le %remises to make
the argument ali#
• Moral %remises – n#ing the truth inoles examining the
su%%ort they get !rom other moral %rinci%les, moral theories,
an# consi#ere# moral 8u#gements – assess "y n#ing counter-exam%les
• Moral theories – these attem%t to ex%lain *hat makes an
action right or *rong – test consistency *ith consi#ere# moral
8u#gements, consistency *ith our ex%erience o! the moral li!e,
an# *orka"ility in real-li!e situations
• Oegal reasoning – courts #etermine *hat the !acts are in cases
through in#uctie reasoning reasoning "y analogy a%%lies
*hen 8u#ges #eci#e cases in light o! %reiously settle# cases
"ur#en o! %roo! can "e highly unequal in legal reasoning
S