A) slippery slope
B) equivocation
C) amphiboly
D) composition
E) division
Exercise: Work with two other people on this. For each question below, you need to do an Internet search. The primary purpose of this exercise is for you to (1) lay out a convincing argument as to why the source or sources you used to answer the question is/are trustworthy. In other words, you need to present an argument as to why you trust and believe the source you found on the Internet in answering the question. Your argument should use as support the sorts of criteria that give a source credibility as discussed in Chapter 4. You'll also need to (2) answer the question and explain the answer. You'll turn in one set of answers and arguments for the group. (Suggested time to complete: A week or week and a half to formulate arguments and answers.)Questions (your instructor may assign
others):1. What vegetable is toxic to dogs? Why, or why not?2. Can you catch a cold by going outside with wet hair? Why, or why not?3. Is it bad for your baby's health to dust a lot? Why, or why not?4. Are children riding in SUVs safer than those riding in passenger cars? Why, or why not?
What will be an ideal response?
Answers will vary
Philosophy & Belief
You might also like to view...
"Given the global recession, we must reduce student entry levels at all universities" expresses
A) a moral judgment. B) a prudential judgment. C) a legal judgment. D) an aesthetic judgment.
Philosophy & Belief
Identify the main point or issue in the following passage, and decide whether the rest of the passage offers reasons for the main point (such as, whether the passage contains an argument), whether it illustrates (provides examples for) the main point, whether it explains the point, is irrelevant to the point, and so on."It is usual for the law to prescribe a lesser penalty for the attempt than for the completed crime. The reason is plain enough. Doing harm is a more serious matter than simply doing what might have ended up as that but didn't. It seems, therefore, that one who does harm does something that is more wrong than one who does something harmful but with no one harmed."-H. Gross, A Theory of Justice
What will be an ideal response?
Philosophy & Belief
“Mr. Buchanan is poor, and he always loses when he plays poker. Therefore, Mr. Buchanan is a poor loser” commits the fallacy of
Philosophy & Belief
Consider the following case. ? You and six others have been drifting in an open lifeboat for weeks. You have no food or water left, and all efforts to catch fish or seabirds for food have failed. There is no realistic hope of rescue. Everyone will die soon unless food can be provided somehow, and everyone is getting too weak and sick even to try to get food. Since you are the weakest and
sickest person in the boat, you are told that, according to the "Custom of the Sea," you will be killed and eaten so the rest may have a chance of survival. ? Now, using at least two of the four major ethical theories we have studied (Kant's duty-defined morality, Bentham's or Mill's utilitarianism, Aristotle's virtue ethics, and the feminist ethics of care), make an argument that the others in the lifeboat would be doing something morally wrong if they ate you. Use at least one of the ethical theories to argue for your position, and at least one other as a counterargument to be refuted. Alternatively, you may use at least one of the ethical theories we have studied to make an argument that eating you would be morally acceptable, even right, in the circumstances, defeating the counterarguments of another ethical theory. What will be an ideal response?
Philosophy & Belief