PHIL 447 DeVry Final Exam Assignment Paper

Order now for an original top nursing paper on PHIL 447 DeVry Final Exam Assignment Paper

Question 1. Question : (TCO 1) “Thinking about thinking” is the definition of what?

Development of arguments
Measure of good sense
Development of critical skills
Writing for clarity
Critical thinking

Question 2. Question : (TCO 1, 2, 4) In Chapter 1, we learned the definition of the term issue. The first order of business when it comes to thinking critically about an issue is:

formulating a proposal.
discovering what side you’re on.
determining exactly what the issue is.
realizing that all claims are equally valid.

Question 3. Question : (TCOs 1, 2, 3) In Chapter 1, we learned the definition of the term argument. The purpose of an argument is to

explain complex ideas.
win adherents to a position.
refute the positions of other people.
support or prove conclusions.

Question 4. Question : (TCOs 2, 3) In Chapter 2, we learned the definition of the term validity. An argument is said to be valid, if and only if, on the assumption that its premises are true, then it is _____ the conclusion is false.

Improbable
very unlikely
possible
impossible

Question 5. Question : (TCO 1, 2) In Chapter 2, we learned the meaning of the three modes of persuasion, as defined by Aristotle. Pathos

refers to arguments based on

logic and reasoning.
ethics and moral character.
emotions and passions.
experiment and observations.

Question 6. Question : (TCO 6) In Chapter 2, we learned how to analyze arguments. If we are having trouble identifying the conclusion, the reason is most likely because we have found

too many rhetorical claims.
not enough background facts provided.
not enough conventions of argument being followed.
that the passage is not an argument at all.

Question 7. Question : (TCOs 6, 7, 8, 9) In Chapter 3, we learned about the key elements of an argumentative essay. An author of a good argumentative essay should do all of the following, EXCEPT

state the position on the main issue.
provide arguments that support the position.
rebut arguments that support contrary positions.
claim to speak with expertise based on qualifications or experience.

Question 8. Question : (TCOs 6, 8, 9) In Chapter 3, we learned the meaning of ambiguity and the difference between semantic and syntactic ambiguous claims. The precise meaning of syntactically ambiguous statement is one that is

vague and too general.
imprecise and lacking clarity.
not clear; it could have one or more words that have more than one meaning.
not clear; it could have two or more meanings due to a confusion in its structure or grammar.

Question 9. Question : (TCOs 2, 6, 7, 8) In Chapter 4, we learned how to assess the credibility of claims. An interested party who makes a claim is one who

has acknowledged expertise on the subject.
is generally more knowledgeable about a claim than others.
stands to gain from our acceptance of a claim.
has no stake in whether or not we believe claim.

Question 10. Question : (TCOs 1, 6, 7, 9) In Chapter 5, we learned that it is important to recognize when a rhetorical slanting device is being used to influence our attitudes and beliefs. A stereotype is a generalization about a group based on a

random survey.
scientific survey.
little or no evidence.
categorization of similar people.

Question 11. Question : (TCOs 1, 7) In Chapter 5, we learned that it is important to recognize when a rhetorical slanting device is being used to influence our attitudes and beliefs. What factor identifies a loaded question?

It has a true premise and an untrue conclusion.
It requires an answer from you.
It is very persuasive based on true and accepted premise claims.
It disguises the correct answer.
It is based on one or more unwarranted or unjustified assumptions.

Question 12. Question : (TCOs 1, 2) In Chapter 6, we learned that it is important to recognize when a fallacy of relevance is being used to influence our attitudes and beliefs. The inconsistency ad hominem fallacy points to a contradiction between the speaker’s argument and arguments or beliefs made by

opponents of the speaker.
people with more credibility than the speaker.
the speaker in the past.
scientists who have conducted research.

Question 13. Question : (TCOs 6, 7, 8) In Chapter 6, we learned that which party is responsible for the burden of proof depends upon a number of factors. All things being equal, the burden of proof falls automatically on the party taking the

affirmative side of the issue.
negative side of the issue.
position neither for or against.
both sides of the issue.

Order now for an original top nursing paper on PHIL 447 DeVry Final Exam Assignment Paper

Question 14. Question : (TCOs 1, 2) In Chapter 11, we learned how to evaluate arguments from analogy. The best way to demonstrate the weakness of an argument form analogy is to show that the analogues are

more similar than stated or implied.
less similar than stated or implied.
found in the premises but not in the conclusion.
found in the conclusion but not in the premises.

Question 15. Question: (TCOs 3, 4) In Chapter 9, we learned the basics of categorical logic. Each standard-form of categorical logic has its own graphic illustration known by what name?

Overlapping regions
Block of exclusion
Johari window
Venn diagram

Question 16. Question : (TCOs 3, 4, 8, 9) In Chapter 9, we learned the basics of categorical logic. Two claims are equivalent, if and only if, under no circumstances

both are false.
one of them is true and the other false.
the truth of one transfer to the other one.
the conclusion is true if the premise is false.

Question 17. Question : (TCOs 2, 3, 4) In Chapter 9, we learned that the square of opposition is a graphic illustration of the relationship between the four standard-form categorical claims. In the square of opposition, the sub contrary claims are those where

both of the claims cannot be true.
both of the claims cannot be false.
the two claims have the opposite truth value.
the two claims have unrelated truth values.

Question 18. Question : (TCOs 2, 3, 4) In Chapter 9, we learned the basics of categorical Logic, including three categorical relations: conversion, contraposition, and obversion. In obversion, the claim is changed from a(n) _____ to a(n) _____ or vice versa.

universal; particular
positive; negative
valid; invalid
subject; predicate

Question 19. Question : (TCOs 2, 5) In Chapter 11, we learned how to evaluate inductive generalizations based on samples. The purpose of studying samples is to generalize from

one sample to another in the sample population.
one sample to another in a different population.
all samples in and out of the population.
a sample to the whole population from which the sample is taken.

Question 20. Question : (TCOs 2, 5) In Chapter 11, we learned how to evaluate inductive generalizations based on samples. A precise definition of the population and the attribute in question is known as the

random sample.
true proportion.
sampling frame.
sampling statement.

Question 21. Question : (TCOs 1, 5, 8, 9) In Chapter 11, we learned how to evaluate inductive generalizations based on samples. A biased sample denotes a sample with attributes

present in the same proportion as the population.
not present in the same proportion as the population.
characteristic of people with biased opinions.
found in a random selection process.

Question 22. Question : (TCOs 1, 2, 3) In Chapter 11, we learned about the meaning and function of three principles of causal hypotheses. If the co-variation principle states that variation in one phenomenon is accompanied by a variation in another phenomenon, then consider

other possible explanations for the variation.
the two phenomena may be causally related.
the two phenomena as the result of another underlying cause.
whether or not the variations are significant enough to form a judgment.

Question 23. Question :(TCOs 2, 6) In Chapter 12, we learned about the nature of consequentialists ethical theories. Consequentialist theories assert that moral decisions should be based on the

motives and intentions.
feelings and intuitions.
outcomes and results.
religious commands and beliefs.

Question 24. Question : (TCOs 2, 6) In Chapter 12, we learned the difference between religious relativism and religious absolutism. The guiding principle of religious relativism is the theory that what is right and wrong is based on the beliefs of

the particular religious affiliations of your culture.
the one and only correct religion, regardless of your culture.
those who have studied the sacred texts of their religion.
those who have critically evaluated the beliefs of their religion.

Question 25. Question : (TCOs 1, 6) In Chapter 12, we learned about the consistency principle, which states in part that, “If separate cases are not different in any relevant way, then they should be treated

different in all cases.”
different in most cases.”
the same in most cases.”
the same in all cases.”

Page 2

Question 1. Question : (TCOs 3, 6, 7, 9) Here is a passage that contains a rhetorical fallacy. Name the fallacy, and in a paragraph, explain why the argument is irrelevant to the point at issue. Here is your example for this question:

Someone says, “I have come before the board of supervisors to ask that you rehire Mr. Wildfire. I realize that Mr. Wildfire does not have a college degree, and I am aware that he has yet to finish a single project. But Mr. Wildfire is over 40 years old now, and he has a wife and two high-school-aged children to support. It will be very difficult for him to find another job at his age. I am sure you will agree.”

Question 2. Question : (TCOs 5, 8) In the example below, identify the presumed cause and the presumed effect. Does the example contain or imply a causal claim, a hypothesis, or an explanation that cannot be tested? If it does fall into one of those categories, tell whether the problem is due to vagueness, circularity, or some other problem of language. Also, tell whether there might be some way to test the situation if it is possible at all. Here is your example:

The movie No Country for Old Men was a big hit because reviewers gave it a good write-up.

Question 3. Question : (TCOs 2, 4) Explain in what way the thinking of the following statement is wrong or defective. Give reasons for your judgment.

Joining the military, like voting, is a major responsibility. Since 17-year-olds can serve in the military, it only makes sense that they be allowed to vote.

Question 4. Question : (TCOs 3, 9) Can a person belong to more than one culture at the same time? If so, does this create any logical difficulty for moral relativists?

Order now for an original top nursing paper on PHIL 447 DeVry Final Exam Assignment Paper

Question 5. Question : (TCOs 6, 7, 9) Here is a short essay about an investigation.

Does jogging keep you healthy? Two independent researchers interested in whether exercise prevents colds interviewed 20 volunteers about the frequency with which they caught colds. The volunteers, none of whom exercised regularly, were then divided into two groups of 10, and one group participated in a six-month regimen of jogging three miles every other day. At the end of the six months, the frequency of colds among the joggers was compared, both with that of the nonjoggers and with that of the joggers prior to the experiment. It was found that, compared with the nonjoggers, the joggers had 25% fewer colds. The record of colds among the joggers also declined in comparison with their own record prior to the exercise program.

Here are also four questions/tasks. Write a paragraph to answer each one of them:

(1) Identify the causal hypothesis at issue.

(2) Identify what kind of investigation it is.

(3) There are control and experimental groups. State the difference in effect (or cause) between the control and experimental groups.

(4) State the conclusion that you think is warranted by the report.

Question 6. Question : (TCOs 3, 4, 6) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question.

Another quality that makes [Texas Republican and former Congressman] Tom DeLay an un-Texas politician is that he’s mean. By and large, Texas pols are an agreeable set of less-than-perfect humans and quite often well-intentioned. As Carl Parker of Port Arthur used to observe, if you took all the fools out of the [Congress], it would not be a representative body any longer. The old sense of collegiality was strong, and vindictive behavior punishing pols for partisan reasons was simply not done. But those are Tom DeLay’s specialties, his trademarks. The Hammer is not only genuinely feared in Washington, he is, I’m sorry to say, hated.

-excerpt from a column by Molly Ivins, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram

(1) What position does the author take on the issue at hand?

(2) If the author is supporting a position with an argument, restate the argument in your own words.

(3) What rhetorical devices does the author employ in this text?

(1) Issue: Whether DeLay is mean and not in line with normal behavior among Texas politicians.

(2) Position taken: Delay is mean and is not like other Texas politicians.

(3) One claim defines “vindictive behavior” and then another claim is made that DeLay often behaves vindictively, whereas most other Texas politicians do not.

(4) “By and large” and “quite often” might be taken as weaselers. “The Hammer” is a dysphemism.

Order now for an original top nursing paper on PHIL 447 DeVry Final Exam Assignment Paper

Question 7. Question : (TCOs 7, 8) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer the question in at least one full paragraph, giving specific reasons.

One day, out of frustration, your roommate rips several pages out of his or her textbook, rolls them up, and throws them across the room. You go to pick up the pages. “Leave them,” your roommate insists. “It says something. It’s art.” “It’s garbage,” you reply. Who is right?

Question 8. Question : (TCOs 6, 7, 9) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question.

Either one thinks that there is no reason for believing any political doctrine or one sees some reason, however shaky, for the commitment of politics. If a person believes that political doctrines are void of content, that person will be quite content to see political debates go on, but won’t expect anything useful to come from them. If we consider the other case, that there is a patriotic justification for a political belief, then what? If the belief is that a specific political position is true, then one ought to be intolerant of all other political beliefs, since each political “position” must be held to be false relative to the belief one has. And since each political position holds out the promise of reward for any probability of its fixing social problems, however small, that makes it seem rational to choose it over its alternatives. The trouble, of course, is that the people who have other political doctrines may hold theirs just as strongly, making strength of belief itself invalid as a way to determine the rightness of a political position.

Your three questions are:

(1) What premises is the author using?

(2) What conclusions does the author come to?

(3) Does the passage contain any errors in reasoning?