I've seen these questions asked today/yesterday (and answered) but I just wanted someone to check over my answers to see if they make sense.
1. Assume that the conclusion of an argument is the claim: It is wrong to inflict suffering on animals. For each of the following premises or linked set of premises state whether the premise or set is positively relevant, negatively relevant or irrelevant to the conclusion. (Worth 2 marks)
(a) It is wrong to inflict suffering on any creature that can experience pain + all animals can experience pain.
-POSITIVELY RELEVANT
(b) Circuses exploit animals for human profit.
IRRELEVANT
(c) Some medical advances for humans can only be achieved at the price of inflicting pain on animals.
-NEGATIVELY RELEVANCE
(d) Under Christian doctrine humans are to be stewards of nature.
-IRRELEVANT
2. In 2004 Z is having a conversation with his friend X and X’s wife Y. Y is a U.S. citizen and a ‘Bushy’ (a supporter of George W. Bush). She is planning on voting for Bush in the upcoming presidential election. Z and X (both are Canadian citizens, not Americans; one liberal and one conservative) are both arguing that Bush is not the best choice for President (primarily on the basis that Bush is an ‘unreflective’ man and that such a man should not occupy the most powerful executive office in the world). After listening to the supporting evidence offered by Z and X, Y responds to their argument as follows: “You’re not Americans, [therefore] your opinions don’t count.”
There is a hidden premise in Y’s argument and an ambiguity regarding what does not count. One interpretation of Y’s argument is as follows:
P1. You’re not Americans
P2. Only American opinions have value
MC. Therefore, your opinions don’t count
This interpretation of the argument is obviously weak as Premise 2 is unacceptable by observation (recall Assignment 4).
There is another plausible interpretation of what Y means by ‘opinions not counting’ that raises an entirely different problem for the argument. You must provide that alternative as the hidden premise and identify the problem that this alternative interpretation of Y’s argument raises. (Worth 2 marks)
-CHANGES FROM ‘HE IS NOT THE BEST CHOICE’ TO ‘YOU CAN’T VOTE’ SO IT DOESN’T MATTER. RED HERRING.
3.jiskha . com/display.cgi?id=1448130778
-RESPONDED WITH NAME CALLING AND NOT AN ANSWER. AD HOMINEM OR RED HERRING?
4.jiskha . com/display.cgi?id=1448137437
-AD HOMINEM. USING HER APPERANCE AS A WAY TO DENOUNCE HER ARGUMENT.
5.jiskha . com/display.cgi?id=1448130918
-RED HERRING. DARWIN DID NOT CLAIM A HEIRARHY OF RACES. USING SOCAIL DARWINISM, WHICH DARWIN DID NOY CREATE
6. An inference is a move from a reason or reasons to a conclusion. For each of the following inferences to the main conclusion, state whether the inference to the main conclusion is deductively valid or deductively invalid. Note that you are not being asked to assess inductive validity, premise acceptability or the soundness of the arguments! (Worth 4 marks)
>>Inference 1
P1: Everything Peter has told me in the past has turned out to be correct.
P2. Peter now tells me that David Johnston is the current Governor-General of Canada.
MC: Therefore, David Johnston is the current Governor-General of Canada (from P1+P2).
-INVALID
>>Inference 2
P1: Some non-human primates have been known to exhibit grief at the loss of a family member.
P2: Creatures capable of exhibiting grief at the loss of a family member are capable of abstract thought.
SC1: All non-human primates are capable of abstract thought (from P1+P2).
P3: Creatures capable of abstract though possess a sense of self.
SC2: All non-human primates possess a sense of self (from SC1+P3).
P4: To be a person is to possess a sense of self.
P5: Persons are moral agents.
MC: All non-human primates are moral agents (from SC2+P4+P5).
-VALID
>>Inference 3
P1: Some cats are not pests.
P2: All cats are pets.
MC: No pets are pests (from P1+ P2).
-INVALID
>>Inference 4
P1: Pigs are winged animals.
P2. All winged animals can fly.
MC: Therefore, pigs can fly (from P1+P2).
-VALID
I know it's long, but I would appreciate the help! I tried formatting it the best I could!
1. Your answers for the relevance of the premises to the conclusion are mostly correct. However, for premise (b) "Circuses exploit animals for human profit," the correct answer is negatively relevant because it suggests that animals are being treated poorly, which supports the conclusion that inflicting suffering on animals is wrong. So the correct answer is negatively relevant, not irrelevant.
2. Your identification of the hidden premise and the problem it raises for Y's argument are correct. The hidden premise is "You can't vote, so it doesn't matter." This alternative interpretation raises the problem of a red herring because it distracts from the original argument about Bush being an unreflective man and whether he should occupy the most powerful executive office.
3. Your identification of the response as name-calling rather than a direct answer is correct. This would be considered an ad hominem because instead of addressing the argument, the response attacks the person making the argument.
4. Your identification of the response using appearance to denounce the argument as an ad hominem is correct. It attacks the person making the argument based on their appearance rather than addressing the argument itself.
5. Your identification of the response as a red herring is correct. The person is misrepresenting Darwin's views and using social Darwinism, which Darwin did not create, to divert from the original argument.
6. Your evaluations of the deductive validity of the inferences are mostly correct. However, for inference 1, the reasoning is invalid because even if everything Peter has said in the past is correct, it does not necessarily mean that his current statement about David Johnston is correct. So the correct answer is invalid, not valid.
Overall, your answers are mostly accurate, but there are a couple of slight errors. Good effort in analyzing and evaluating the arguments!
Let's go through your answers to check if they make sense:
1. (a) You correctly identified that the premise is positively relevant to the conclusion because it supports the claim that it is wrong to inflict suffering on animals.
(b) You correctly identified that this premise is irrelevant to the conclusion because it does not directly support or refute the claim.
(c) You correctly identified that this premise is negatively relevant because it presents a reason that goes against the conclusion. It suggests that inflicting pain on animals may be justified in some cases.
(d) You correctly identified that this premise is irrelevant to the conclusion because it does not directly support or refute the claim.
2. You correctly identified the first interpretation of Y's argument and recognized that it is weak and unacceptable. However, you did not provide the alternative hidden premise or identify the problem it raises. The alternative hidden premise could be: "Only American opinions matter when it comes to the U.S. presidential election." The problem with this interpretation is that it commits the fallacy of nationalism, assuming that only citizens of a particular country have valid opinions on its politics.
3. The provided link does not lead to a specific argument or response, so it cannot be assessed.
4. You correctly identified that this is an ad hominem fallacy because it attacks the person's appearance rather than addressing their argument.
5. You correctly identified that this is a red herring fallacy because it introduces a different topic (social Darwinism) than the one being discussed (Darwin's claim on the hierarchy of races).
6. (Inference 1) You correctly identified that this inference is invalid because P1 only establishes a past track record, and P2 introduces new information that might not be correct.
(Inference 2) You correctly identified this inference as valid because it logically follows the given premises.
(Inference 3) You correctly identified that this inference is invalid because it does not logically follow from the premises. There could still be some cats that are pests.
(Inference 4) You correctly identified that this inference is valid because it logically follows the premises.
Overall, your answers are mostly correct. Just make sure to address all aspects of the questions, such as providing the alternative hidden premise and identifying the problem it raises in question 2.