philosophy homework

Philosophy 101-940, Exam #2. Uploaded by or on: Friday, January 30. Due, Thursday, February 5, noon (upload to BB-Learn). The exam covers Unit One and Unit Two. State accurately the ideas you want to convey. Avoid "copy and paste." Available: 16 points (3x4 & 2x2). Add empty lines spaces as necessary to keep questions and answers separate from each other. Good luck!

NAME:

Question #1. Take a look at these three arguments [make sure you know what "argument" means, as well as the words in the arguments; see the textbook]:

AA.

Premise 1. Religious beliefs tend to be, or to be based on, wishful thinking.

Premise 2. Wishful thinking is not conducive to true belief.

Conclusion (therefore): Religious beliefs are not conducive to true belief.

AB.

Premise 1. If God exists, the sentence "Most people are not mediocre and ignorant" is true.

Premise 2. The sentence "Most people are not mediocre and ignorant" is false.

Therefore: God does not exist.

AC.

Premise 1. All archaic, evidentially ill-supported illusions (<= Freud's special term) are very probably false.

Premise 2. Anyone’s belief in theism is an archaic, evidentially ill-supported illusion.

Therefore: Anyone’s belief in theism is very probably false.

These arguments are presented in Unit One (I've made a few changes). Decide, for each of the three arguments, whether it is valid or invalid, and whether it is sound or unsound. "Decide" means mention, take into account, or examine the considerations for and against the evaluations [i.e., V/In; S/Un]. When you decide, defend your decisions, so your decisions are rational. Material on validity and soundness is found in Unit Two, on "Logic." (Each part in this section of the exam is worth 4 pts. Part-credit is available at 0.5 increments.)

Part 1: Argument AA

Part 2: Argument AB

Part 3: Argument AC

Question #2. On page 14 of the textbook, you will find these two examples (totally in English!) of the use of deductive logic that involves the application of "rules of inference" (which are provided in the textbook, pp. 13-14). I added some details to the textbook versions and slightly modified them:

Example One is a deduction that involves the application of rule #5 (disjunctive syllogism):

Premise1: I will eat an apple or I will eat a pear. [I’ll eat at least one of these two pieces of fruit]

Premise2: I will not eat a pear. [I just remembered that I am allergic to pears]

So (conclusion): I will eat an apple. [from P1 and P2 by rule #5]

(The italicized comments are not part of the argument.

I added them to explain the premises

or the reasoning that is going on.)

Example Two is a deduction that involves the application of three rules of inference, #1, #3, and #5.

Premise1: I will eat an apple or I will eat a pear. [i.e., at least one of these two fruits]

P2: I will not eat a pear. [I just remembered that I am allergic to pears]

(3) So: I will eat an apple. [ first intermediate conclusion, from P1 and P2, via rule #5 ]

P3: If I will eat an apple and some grapes, I will be a little more healthy. [that's what my doctor says]

P4. I will eat some grapes. [they looked really good in the grocery, so I bought some]

(6) So: I will eat an apple and some grapes. [ second intermediate conclusion, from P4 and line 3, via rule #3 ]

So: I will be a little more healthy. [ final conclusion, from P3 and the second intermediate conclusion [line 6], via rule #1 ]

YOUR TASK (value, 2 points each): Provide, totally in English, "Example Three" and "Example Four," as described below. I'll leave the number of premises up to you, as well as their content.

Example Three: Construct (create) a valid argument that matches Example One in this way: the final conclusion is derived from the premises using only one rule of inference. It must not be the same rule as used in Example One. Be sure to add "marginal" comments in italics so I can follow your line of thought.

Example Four: Construct (create) a valid argument that matches Example Two in this way: the final conclusion is derived from the premises using exactly three rules of inference. Only one of the rules you use may be a rule that was used in Example Two. (You may use 3 "new" rules if you want, but not more than 1 "old" rule.) Be sure to add "marginal" comments in italics so I can follow your line of thought.

1