First Homework Assignment

Due Tuesday, Sept. 14th at 9am. Submit your work via Moodle before then.
Phil 141: Critical Thinking

Part I: For each of the following, (a) specify whether it is an argument or not, and if it is an
argument, say what the conclusion is. Also, (b) if it is an argument, identify what kind of
argument is, and why. Some of these may have more than one acceptable answer, depending on
your reasons why you gave that answer. So in this sense, the reasons why you gave your answer
are more important than the answer itself. (If you are torn between more than one answer, pick
the one that seems the least controversial.)

(1) In the month that I’ve known Tommy, I’ve seen him inexplicably hide from strangers,
and talk to imaginary friends. He also fidgets constantly in a nervous manner. I’m
therefore expecting similar behavior from Tommy in the future.
This is an inductive argument. The conclusion is the last sentence, and it indicates that
Tommy’s strange behavior noted in the premises will continue into the future. This is a case
of a conclusion extrapolating from known cases of a certain phenomenon to unknown cases,
as per the definition of induction.

(2) Tommy behaves strangely: He hides from strangers, has imaginary friends, and fidgets
nervously. I conclude that he feels that other people are always judging him.
This is an abductive argument. The conclusion drawn is an explanation of the strange
behaviors noted in the premises, per the definition of abduction. But the definition also
requires that it is neither inductive nor deductive. First, it is not inductive since the premises
are not registering other occasions where Tommy felt that people judge him. And it’s not
deductive since it’s possible that his strange behaviors are caused by something else, besides
the feeling of being judged. (Perhaps Tommy is playfully hiding from strangers, and
playfully imagining friends, and his nervous figeting is not actually caused by nervousness
but rather ADHD.)

(3) Tommy behaves strangely: He hides from strangers, has imaginary friends, and fidgets
nervously. Everyone avoids people who behave in this way.
This is not an argument; this is shown by the fact that one cannot say whether the first
sentence is meant to support the second, or rather whether the second sentence is meant to
support the first. They are just two independent judgements which happen to both concern
strange behavior.

(4) Tommy behaves strangely: He hides from strangers, has imaginary friends, and fidgets
nervously. So, his peers avoid him.
This is an argument, but it goes in the “other” category. This is because it has a conclusion
(marked by ‘So’) but it is neither inductive, nor deductive, nor abductive, nor practical. It’s
not deductive, since it’s possible for Tommy’s friends to stick by him, despite his strange
behaviors. It’s not inductive since the premises are not recording known cases where peers
avoided him in other circumstances. And it’s not abductive: Tommy’s strange behaviors are
meant to explain why his peers avoid him—but in abduction, the explanatory order goes in
 the other direction. The conclusion is meant to explain the premise. Finally, it’s not practical
since there is no suggestion that his peers should avoid him.

(5) Tommy behaves strangely: He hides from strangers, has imaginary friends, and fidgets
nervously. Everyone avoids people who behave in this way. So, his peers avoid him.
This is a deductive argument. The premises may not be true, but if Tommy exhibits those
strange behaviors, and if it’s true that everyone avoids people with such behaviors, then it
must be true that everyone (including Tommy’s peers) avoid him. That is, there’s no possible
way for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, per the definition of deduction.

Part II: Each of the following arguments has either a “famous form” or commits a “formal
fallacy.” First, abbreviate each of the basic component statements with a capital letter. Then,
rewrite the argument using the capital letters in place of the English components. Finally, tell
me which famous form and/or formal fallacy the argument has. Be sure to show how the
argument is a substitution instance of the form: Tell me how to replace the boldface letters in the
form in order to obtain the argument.

(1) If Susan is a famous author, then she knows how to write. But Susan is not a famous author.
Therefore, she does not know how to write.

A = Susan is a famous author.

If A, then W. Not A. So, Not W.

This is denying the antecedent where ‘A’ replaces ‘A’ and ‘W’ replaces ‘B’ in the form for
denying the antecedent.

(2) If Susan is a famous author, then she knows how to write. But Susan does not know how to
write. So, she is not a famous author.

Same abbreviations as in (1).

If A, then W. Not W. So, Not A.

This is modus tollens where ‘A’ replaces ‘A’ and ‘W’ replaces ‘B’ in the form for modus tollens.

(3) If Susan is a famous author, then she knows how to write. And she knows how to write. So,
she is a famous author.

Same abbreviations as in (1).

If A, then W. W. So, A.
This is affirming the consequent where ‘A’ replaces ‘A’ and ‘W’ replaces ‘B’ in the form for
affirming the consequent.

(4) Oil prices will fall if stability is achieved in the Middle East. And stability will be achieved in
the Middle East, provided that the Israel-Palestine conflict is resolved. So, oil prices will fall if
the Israel-Palestine conflict is resolved.

F = Oil prices will fall

If S, then F. If R, then S. So, if R, then F.

This is hypothetical syllogism, where ‘R’ replaces ‘A’, ‘S’ replaces ‘B’, and ‘F’ replaces ‘C’.

(5) Assume for argument’s sake that the University fails to get a substantial budget increase. In
that case, computer service will only get worse. So if the University doesn’t get a substantial
budget increase, then computer service is going to deteriorate.

U = The University gets a substantial budget increase.

Assume Not U…W follows. So, if Not U, then W.

This is conditional proof, where ‘Not U’ replaces ‘A’ and ‘W’ replaces ‘B’ in the form for
conditional proof.