Assignment instructions:

PHI10003 Critical Thinking PORTFOLIO

This is to be the first part of your Portfolio of Critical Thinking work.

Please submit it via Canvas Questions, with a Cover Sheet attached.

Arguments and non-arguments

1.    Real-world arguments and non-arguments

• Briefly describe two real-life arguments you have recently encountered—either in the media, or in conversation, or in your studies in other subjects. What were their conclusions? What was it that showed they were arguments?

(b)   Briefly describe a real-life explanation you have recently encountered—either in the media, or in conversation, or in your studies in other subjects. What was being explained? What showed it was an explanation (and not something else)?

Standardising and diagramming arguments

2.    First standardise (1 mark), and then diagram (1 mark), the following argument.

Chimpanzees today are in danger of extinction; for with the spread of agriculture and forestry, their habitat and their lives are threatened, because their forests are cleared to make way for cultivation and their food trees are poisoned to make space for timber trees. Moreover, since chimps are susceptible to all the infectious diseases of man, wherever their populations are near new human settlements they are endangered by epidemics.

3.    Standardise, and then diagram, two real-life arguments you have recently encountered—either in the media, or in conversation, or in your studies in other subjects.

Argument Evaluation

4.    Arguments from real life

• Counter-considerations

Briefly explain a real-life argument you have recently encountered—either in the media, or in conversation, or in your reading—that you think is subject to a serious counter-consideration. Explain the counter-consideration and how serious its impact is on the argument’s strength/weakness.

• Fallacies

Briefly explain two (2) real-life arguments you have recently encountered—either in the media, or in advertisements, or in conversation—that you think commit fallacies.

In each case, (i) name the fallacy, (ii) explain how it is committed, and (iii) say how much you think the argument is weakened by the fallacy it commits.

5.    Standardisation and ARG argument evaluation

• First complete the partly completed standardisation below of the following argument.

People who study history are wiser than those who do not. Studying history makes a person unlikely to repeat the mistakes of the past, and not repeating the mistakes of the past is a sign of wisdom. Since the primary aim of education is producing wisdom, all educational institutions should require the study of history.

Below is the partly completed standardisation. Finish it by giving each statement its number (in the original passage above), and by inserting the word “Thus” before any sub- conclusion. (0.5 marks)

Studying history makes a person unlikely to repeat the mistakes of the past Not repeating the mistakes of the past is a sign of wisdom

People who study history are wiser than those who do not The primary aim of education is producing wisdom Therefore,

All educational institutions should require the study of history

(b)  Now evaluate the argument above using the detailed ARG method. When evaluating the argument, be sure to mention any counter-considerations you think of, and their impact on the argument’s strength/weakness.

Counter-considerations

6.    Read the following passage, and answer questions (i) – (iv) below.

“Children exposed to secondhand smoke have twice as many cavities as those who are not, according to a study. The research, published in yesterday’s edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association, adds to the litany of woes caused by smoking and gives more ammunition to proponents of smoking restrictions. “Reduction of passive smoking is important not only for the prevention of many medical problems, but also for the promotion of children’s dental health,” said Andrew Aligne, a pediatric researcher at the University of Rochester and lead author. He noted that tooth decay is the single most common chronic childhood disease, so any measure that would reduce cavities would have a significant economic impact. The researchers estimated that at least one-quarter of children’s cavities would be eliminated if they were not exposed to secondhand smoke.”

(Andre Picard, “Secondhand smoke linked to tooth decay in children,” Globe and Mail, March 13, 2003)

• Essentially, what is the pediatric researcher, Andrew Aligne, claiming?
• Essentially, how does the researcher attempt to justify that claim?
• How many counter-considerations (potential objections or alternative possibilities) to the researcher's claims are discussed in the passage? Select one answer
  • None (b) One        (c) Two        (d) More than two

• Think of a counter-consideration (potential objection or alternative possibility) yourself that might potentially cast doubt on the researcher's reasoning, and explain its relevance.