Question Details

(solution) 1 Assignment | Chapter 4 Analysis | Last updated 10.04.16 (EC


Im looking for a reliable PHILOSOPHY TUTOR. 

Chapter 4 Analysis 

Book: Ultimate Questions. Thinking About Philosophy. Nils Ch. Rauhut

Instructions are attached. 


1 Assignment | Chapter 4 Analysis | Last updated 10.04.16 (EC added)

 

GUIDANCE: A GOOD ARGUMENT SATISFIES TWO CONDITIONS

 

In Philosophical analysis in particular, and in critical thinking in general: A claim? -- i.e., a conclusion / belief / view / statement / answer / position qualifies as

 

Knowledge ?or? fact ?-- i.e., true / reasonable / justified / justifiable when

 

(1) There are reasons? for thinking that the claim is true, and-(2) The reasons lead ?logically? to that claim, and-(3) The reasons are actually ?true

 

This is exactly why the Response posts require specific questions like:

 

1. What led to that conclusion?? ?This question helps u

 

? ncover reasons, i.e., premises?.

 

2. Does the conclusion follow from the premises?? This question isolates the l? ogic? factor.

 

3. Is each premise true?? This question isolates the t? ruth? factor.

 

An opinion or belief is only as good as the reasoning that supports it.? That is why it makes no

 

sense to challenge, disagree with, or find fault with someone?s position.

 

Errors-- if there are any-- will be in the r? easoning that supports the position?: Either the premises

 

don?t actually lead, logically, to their conclusion, or one of their premises is false. You cannot

 

determine any of this until you uncover the reasoning, and assemble the argument.

 

A ?good? argument is one that satisfies these two conditions:

 

? The Logic condition?: The conclusion follows logically from the premises

 

? The Truth condition?: Every premise in the argument is true

 

OVERVIEW / REVIEW / PREVIEW

 

Recall the ?logic? concepts and tools highlighted in chapter two:

 

Logical consistency (p.16), Logical possibility (p. 19), Necessary and sufficient conditions

 

(p. 21), Standard form (p. 26), Deductive reasoning, logical form, validity (p. 30+), Inductive

 

reasoning, probability, strength, (p. 35+)

 

Chapter three introduced ?Epistemology?, the branch of Philosophy that investigates the nature of

 

knowledge?. A main question at stake in chapter three: ? ?What?s ? the difference between ? believing? something is true, and knowing it is true?? 2 Recall the? truth ?and? justification? concepts and tools highlighted in chapter three:

 

Descartes? method of doubt (p. 51), Induction (p. 65), A priori justification (p. 68), A

 

posteriori justification (p. 69), Necessary truth (p. 69), Contingent truth (p. 69), Analytic truth

 

(p. 72), Synthetic truth (p. 72)

 

Chapter three ends,

 

?Equipped with these basic epistemological and logical tools, we are ready to explore some

 

classic philosophical problems?? (p. 74).

 

In chapter four we turn to a? classical philosophical problem? that falls under Metaphysics (the

 

branch that investigates the nature of existence): ?the problem of Free Will?.

 

The main questions at stake in the problem of Free Will:

 

?

 

?

 

? Does free will exist?

 

How much power does the past have over the future? (p. 78).

 

Can we be free even if the future is determined by the past? For this assignment please read chapter four in the textbook.

 

RESOURCES

 

Some Free Will videos for your learning pleasure: h

 

? ttp://purplebike.com/?p=439 3

 

CHAPTER FOUR WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS CHECKLIST

 

Criteria

 

Section I

 

Section II

 

Composition

 

Extra Credit All CC paragraph instructions followed

 

Contains a response to every prompt

 

All instructions followed

 

All prompts addressed / responded to

 

1. Name

 

2. Recognition

 

Response #1

 

3. Two Socrates questions & significance of each explained

 

4. Final insight & relevant text passage properly cited

 

1. Name

 

2. Recognition

 

Response #2

 

3. Two Socrates questions & significance of each explained

 

4. Final insight & relevant text passage properly cited Worth

 

10

 

20

 

10

 

10

 

20 Earned 20 ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIONS

 

To qualify for full points follow these steps in the order shown:

 

1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

4.

 

5.

 

6.

 

7.

 

8. Copy and paste everything a

 

? fter the line ?below into a word processor document.

 

Leave the formatting as is: ?Section titles in bold?, your answers in regular.

 

Replace all assignment prompts in each section with your own responses.

 

Double check that your work aligns with what each prompt actually requires.

 

Go to the appropriate discussion forum in Canvas.

 

Click on ?Reply? to create a field for your post.

 

Paste your entire, completed Analysis post into that field..

 

Click on ?Post Reply?. -------------------------------------------------I. Conceptual Clarification

 

Construct a Conceptual Clarification (CC) paragraph for the concept listed below.

 

?Causality?

 

Also required:? For the example part, use relevant facets of the ?Big decision? you introduced in

 

the chapter one analysis. Don?t rehash every detail of your big decision, rather, extract facets of it

 

that (1) are relevant to the concept, and (2) can be used to illustrate the concept in action.

 

II. Analyze, Evaluate, Reflect

 

In this section, you will ?evaluate? the argument in defense of hard determinism, exactly as outlined

 

on page 84. Remember, a ?good? argument is one that meets two conditions. See the first page of

 

this instructions document for a review of those two conditions.

 

FIRST STEP: RESEARCH, EVALUATE, COMPOSE 4 Review the argument as it is outlined on page 84. Review the prompts below. Compose a

 

thoughtful yet succinct response to each prompt. Do not ramble. Do not insert off-topic opinions.

 

DO NOT ?include the assignment prompts in the post you submit for grading. Rather, you will be

 

combining your answers to each prompt and turning them into paragraphs, in the second step.

 

Evaluate

 

1. Logic: ?Is the argument inductive or deductive?? Support your conclusion. In other words,

 

give your readers good reasons to think that your conclusion here (?It is inductive? or ?It is

 

deductive?) is accurate. Here that means to connect to and incorporate a relevant t? ext

 

passage?, properly quoted and cited, that helps you make a brief yet convincing case that

 

the logic is deductive or inductive. H

 

? int?: see the sections in chapter two that cover these.

 

2. Logic: ?What logic pattern(s) are used?? (E.g., modus ponens, enumerative inductive, etc.).

 

Support your answer. In other words, offer good reasons to think that your answer is true.

 

Here that means to incorporate a relevant ?text passage?, properly quoted and cited, that

 

helps you make a brief yet convincing case that the logic matches the form you say it does.

 

Hint?: see chapter two sections that cover deductive and inductive argument forms.

 

3. Logic: ?Do the premises lead logically to the conclusion?? ?If yes, is the logic valid, or

 

strong?? If the argument is made up of several smaller argument, both criteria may apply.

 

Support your answers. I.e., give your readers good reasons to think that your answers are

 

true. Here that means to incorporate a relevant ?text passage?, properly quoted and cited,

 

that helps you make a brief yet convincing case that the logic is as you say it is. ?Hint?: see

 

the chapter two sections that cover deductive validity and inductive strength.

 

4. Truth: ?Is each premise true? T

 

? his time, just choose the ?two? premises that you think are

 

least likely? to be true. In other words, do NOT evaluate all six premises.

 

a. If true: ?Contingently? true or ?necessarily? true?

 

b. If false: ?Contingently? false or ?necessarily? false?

 

c. Either way: Support your conclusion. In other words, give readers good reasons to

 

think that your evaluation here is accurate. Here that means incorporate a relevant

 

text passage?, properly quoted and cited, that helps you make a brief yet convincing

 

case that each premise is true or false; contingent or necessary. ?Hint?: see the

 

sections in chapter three that cover necessary truth and contingent truth.

 

Reflect

 

5. Which of the four steps above was easiest to respond to and assemble? Why? Which was

 

most difficult? Why? Did the textbook?s analysis of the argument, before and after the

 

argument in logical form, help? Were you skeptical of Hard Determinism when you first

 

encountered it in the text? Why or why not? Finally, setting aside whether you agree with

 

the argument?s conclusion, does the argument as a whole provide good reason for thinking

 

that we have no free will? Why or why not? Is your answer based on what you want to be

 

true, or on what is logically and evidentially justifiable as true?

 

SECOND STEP: ORGANIZE & FINALIZE

 

First, insert the argument on page 84 into your post as the FIRST item in this section. Insert it

 

exactly as shown. That means make sure it remains in standard form. 5 Second, assemble your responses, organize them into several b

 

? rief? ?paragraphs? that contain good

 

topic sentences, the ?four? required text passages above, accurately formatted in-text citations, etc.

 

Third, please bold key terms, like I do in my instructions documents. For the sake of your

 

classmates? eyes. Thanks!

 

III. References

 

Insert entries here. See the Composition handout in the Pages section of Canvas for details.

 

Extra Credit

 

Review a solid sample of Analysis posts and Response posts in the Chapters 3 Assignment forum.

 

Then offer detailed and honest answers to the questions below. D

 

? o not discuss your actual

 

grade or points received. Any posts that do will be documented and then deleted without

 

warning.

 

Identify an Analysis post, by a classmate, in that forum, that was done especially well. By ?well?

 

here I mean that their answers demonstrated careful thought, valid logical (as that is defined in

 

chapter two!), close attention paid to assignment instructions, accurate understanding of relevant

 

textbook concepts, and concrete evidence as support.

 

Identify the individual by name. Identify two things you thought they did especially well. Be detailed

 

and specific.

 

What are two things that you think YOU have done well in your Analysis posts so far? What leads

 

you to your conclusion that those were done well?

 

What are two things you think YOU could do to improve your Analysis posts, moving forward?

 

Explain what you will do, specifically, to achieve each goal.

 


Solution details:

Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card . All your purchases are securely protected by .
SiteLock

About this Question

STATUS

Answered

QUALITY

Approved

DATE ANSWERED

Sep 13, 2020

EXPERT

Tutor

ANSWER RATING

GET INSTANT HELP/h4>

We have top-notch tutors who can do your essay/homework for you at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments.

You can also use these solutions:

  • As a reference for in-depth understanding of the subject.
  • As a source of ideas / reasoning for your own research (if properly referenced)
  • For editing and paraphrasing (check your institution's definition of plagiarism and recommended paraphrase).
This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student.

NEW ASSIGNMENT HELP?

Order New Solution. Quick Turnaround

Click on the button below in order to Order for a New, Original and High-Quality Essay Solutions. New orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.

WE GUARANTEE, THAT YOUR PAPER WILL BE WRITTEN FROM SCRATCH AND WITHIN A DEADLINE.

Order Now