(solution) TCOs 3, 6, 7, 9) Here is a passage that contains a rhetorical

(solution) TCOs 3, 6, 7, 9) Here is a passage that contains a rhetorical

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.” (Points : 15)      
      

Question 2.2. (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:

This part of the coastline is subject to mudslides because there is a lack of mature vegetation growing on it. (Points : 15)      
      

Question 3.3. (TCOs 2, 4) Explain in what way the thinking of the following statement is wrong or defective. Give reasons for your judgment.

I believe that violent video games contribute to sexual violence and other forms of anti-social behavior. No one has ever shown that it doesn?t. (Points : 10)      
      

Question 4.4. (TCOs 3, 9) Moral relativism is the belief that what is right or wrong may differ from group to group, or culture to culture. What are the difficulties of moral relativism? (Points : 10)      
      

Question 5.5. (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. (Points : 30)      
      

Question 6.6. (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?

A.
(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. (Points : 30)      
      

Question 7.7. (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? (Points : 20)      
      

Question 8.8. (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? (Points : 20)      
      

(TCO 1) In Chapter 1, we learned the definition of the termcritical thinking. Critical thinking is madecritical by(Points : 4)

       careful and deliberate work without guidance.
       an analytic process unrelated to issues.
       coming up with claims, true or otherwise.
       applying common sense to complex problems.
       guiding us about critiquing thinking.

Question 2.2. (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:(Points : 4)

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

Question 3.3. (TCOs 1, 2, 3) In Chapter 1, we learned the definition of the term argument. The purpose of an argument is to (Points : 4)

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

Question 4.4. (TCOs 2, 3) In Chapter 2, we learned the meaning of inductive arguments. The support that the premises provide for the conclusion of an inductive argument is best described in terms of (Points : 4)

       valid or invalid.
       sound or unsound.
       provable or unprovable.
       strong or weak.

Question 5.5. (TCO 1, 2) In Chapter 2, we learned the meaning of the three modes of persuasion, as defined by Aristotle. Logos
refers to arguments based on (Points : 4)

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

Question 6.6. (TCO 6) In Chapter 2, we learned how to analyze arguments. The first step in trying to understand arguments is to find the (Points : 4)

       nonargumentative materials attached to it .
       elements of confusion.
       conclusion or thesis of the passage.
       intentions of the author.

Question 7.7. (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 (Points : 4)

       discredit the integrity of the opponents.
       rebut the arguments that support contrary positions.
       state his/her position on the issue.

       provide arguments that support his/her position on the issue.

Question 8.8. (TCOs 6, 8, 9) In Chapter 3, we learned the meaning of ambiguity and the difference between semantic and syntactic ambiguous claims. Consider the following example:
?Students at DeVry enroll in thousands of courses every semester.?
 In this statement, the ambiguity used is (Points : 4)

       syntactic; confusion caused by misplaced modifiers.
       syntactic; confusion caused by improper punctuation.
       semantic; confusion caused by the meaning of semester.
       semantic; confusion caused by groups with individuals in the group.

Question 9.9. (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 (Points : 4)

       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 10.10. (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. The purpose of the rhetorical device called a dysphemism is to replace a term with a(n) _____ meaning with one that has a(n) _____ meaning.(Points : 4)

       inappropriate; appropriate
       vague; precise
       ambiguous; clearer
       positive or neutral; negative

Question 11.11. (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. The purpose of the rhetorical device called a proof surrogate is to suggest a claim?s truth based on (Points : 4)

       common knowledge.
       biased opinion.
       promise of evidence without providing any support.
       promise to nurture a claim following through on the promise.

Question 12.12. (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. A personal ad hominem
fallacy is an attack on (Points : 4)

       arguments.
       facts.
       opinions.
       the character of the person making the argument.
 

Question 13.13. (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. When the fallacy of misplaced burden of proof is used, the burden of proof is unfairly shifted onto parties (Points : 4)

       making the original claim.
       opposing the original claim.
       who are expert but who might not have studied the issue.
       on both sides of the issue.

Question 14.14. (TCOs 1, 2) In Chapter 9, we learned the basics of categorical logic. The two terms that make up the standard-form categorical claim are known as the(Points : 4)

       initial and background term.
       plain and common sense term.
       category and individual term.
       subject and predicate term.

Question 15.15.  (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? (Points : 4)

       Overlapping regions
       Block of exclusion
       Johari window
       Venn diagram 

Question 16.16. (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 (Points : 4)

       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 17.17. (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 (Points : 4)

       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 18.18. (TCOs 2, 3, 4) In Chapter 9, we learned the basics of categorical logic, including three categorical relations: conversion, contraposition, and obversion. Conversion involves switching the places of the _____ terms. (Points : 4)

       positive and negative
       universal and particular
       subject and predicate
       A and B 

Question 19.19. (TCOs 2, 5) In Chapter 11, we learned how to evaluate inductive generalizations based on samples. A random sample chosen in a way so that every member of the target population has a(n) _____ chance of being included in the sample. (Points : 4)

       equal
       less than equal
       greater than equal
       undetermined 

Question 20.20. (TCOs 2, 5) In Chapter 11, we learned how to evaluate inductive generalizations based on samples. In evaluating a sample, the two key factors that need to be addressed are sample (Points : 4)

       strength and weakness.
       size and bias.
       weight and volume.
       similarities and dissimilarities.

Question 21.21. (TCOs 1, 5, 8, 9) In Chapter 7, we learned how to recognize fallacies of induction. The fallacy of hasty generalization results from a sample that is not _____ to represent the population. (Points : 4)

       properly selected
       large enough
       gathered with enough patience
       gathered with a specific purpose in mind

Question 22.22. (TCOs 1, 2, 3) In Chapter 11, we learned about the meaning and function of three principles of causal hypotheses. The common variable principle states a variable related to multiple occurrences may be (Points : 4)

       excluded as a possible causal explanation.
       considered as part of a group of possible explanations.
       included as the causal explanation.
       considered a possible effect of another causal explanation.

Question 23.23. (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 (Points : 4)

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

Question 24.24. (TCOs 2, 6) In Chapter 12, we learned the major characteristics of utilitarian ethics can be summarized as the act that produces the most happiness is correct (Points : 4)

       if it also achieves justice for everyone.
       if it is based in accepted moral principles.
       regardless, even if it means abandoning accepted moral principles.
       usually the correct thing to do, but not always.

Question 25.25. (TCOs 1, 6) In Chapter 12, we learned about moral reasoning principle #2, which states in part, ?If someone appears to be violating the consistency principle, then burden of proof is on the person(Points : 4)

       observing the violation of the consistency principle.?
       violating the consistency principle.?
       anyone who is using moral reasoning.?
       people who don?t reason about morals and just accept them at face value.?