Deadline 30 March 2020

concern fallacies of relevance (Chapter 6); Question 7 concerns the differences between deductive and inductive validity; and Questions 8-9 concern categorical syllogisms (Chapter 7). Your completed Assignment 2 must be typed and submitted (hard copy) at the start of class onThursday, April 2nd

. This assignment is worth 20% of your final course grade. 1. The text box contains an argument that appeared in the draft of a bill before the Louisiana

State Legislature in 2001:Whereas, the writings of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, promoted the justification of

racism, and his books On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man postulate a hierarchy of

superior and inferior races… Therefore, be it resolved that the legislature of Louisiana does

hereby deplore all instances and all ideologies of racism, does hereby reject the core concepts of

Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others, and

does hereby condemn the extent to which these philosophies have been used to justify and

approve racist practices. Is there a potential fallacy of relevance (e.g. strawman, red herring, ad populam, ad hominem,

pro homine, guilt by association, honour by association, ad ingorantiam ) in the text box

argument? If so, identify the pattern and explain whether the pattern is fallacious or not

fallacious. (Worth 2 marks)

2. The text box contains an excerpt from a letter to the editor the actor Richard Harris wrote to

the Sunday Times in 1995 regarding an interview given by the actor Michael Caine to the Times.

In the interview, Caine numbered himself among the premier English actors of his generation

and implied that he had out-achieved his peers in several respects. Harris wrote:Any suggestion that he [Caine] has eclipsed the names of Finney, O’Toole, Burton, Bates, Smith

and Courtenay is tantamount to prophesying that Rin-Tin-Tin will be solemnized beyond the

memory of Brando…. In truth, he [Caine] is an over-fat, flatulent 62-year old windbag, a master

of inconsequence now masquerading as a guru, passing off his vast limitations as pious virtues.Is there a potential fallacy of relevance (e.g. strawman, red herring, ad populam, ad hominem,

pro homine, guilt by association, honour by association, ad ingorantiam ) in the text box

argument? If so, identify the pattern and explain whether it is fallacious or not fallacious.

(Worth 2 marks)

3. Read the argument in the following text box concerning proposals to honor Dr Norman

Bethune (from a letter to the Toronto Star, Sep 1982):Is it possible to honour Dr Norman Bethune as a humanitarian, despite the fact that he was a self-

confessed Communist? Only a negative rejoinder is possible, for the morality of a person’s acts must be judged by their consequences. Thus when Dr Bethune placed his medical skills and

humanism at the service of international Communism, he unquestionably contributed to an evil

ideology that has produced mountains of corpses.Is there a potential fallacy of relevance (e.g. strawman, red herring, ad populam, ad hominem,

pro homine, guilt by association, honour by association, ad ingorantiam ) in the text box

argument? If so, identify the pattern and explain whether it is fallacious or not fallacious.

(Worth 2 marks)

4. In 2004 Z is having a conversation with his friend X and X’s wife Y. Y is a U.S. citizen and a

‘Bushy’ (a supporter of George W. Bush). She is planning on voting for Bush in the upcoming

presidential election. Z and X (Canadians) are both arguing that Bush is not the best choice for

President (primarily on the basis that Bush is an ‘unreflective’ man and that such a man should

not occupy the most powerful executive office in the world). After listening to the supporting

evidence offered by Z and X, Y responds to their argument as follows in the text box: You’re not Americans, only Americans can vote, so your opinions don’t count.Is there a potential fallacy of relevance (e.g. strawman, red herring, ad populam, ad hominem,

pro homine, guilt by association, honour by association, ad ingorantiam ) in the text box

argument? If so, identify the pattern and explain whether it is fallacious or not fallacious.

(Worth 2 marks)

5. Read the argument in the following text box:Former lawyer Ingrid Chen has been convicted of attempted extortion for attempting to hire a

biker to threaten former clients with physical violence in order to collect unpaid legal bills.

Ingrid Chen has shown herself to have little respect for the rule of law. Therefore, it is right that

Ingrid Chen not be permitted to resume practicing law.Is there a potential fallacy of relevance (e.g. strawman, red herring, ad populam, ad hominem,

pro homine, guilt by association, honour by association, ad ingorantiam ) in the text box

argument? If so, identify the pattern and explain whether it is fallacious or not fallacious.

(Worth 2 marks)

6. Read the argument in the following text box:We cannot predict the effects of human interventions in the environment. This forest is in its

natural state, untouched by human intervention. Therefore, we should preserve it in that form. Is there a potential fallacy of relevance (e.g. strawman, red herring, ad populam, ad hominem,

pro homine, guilt by association, honour by association, ad ingorantiam ) in the text box

argument? If so, identify the pattern and explain whether it is fallacious or not fallacious.

(Worth 2 marks)

7. Identify the four properties of a deductive inference and the four contrasting properties of an

inductive inference, identified in class by the instructor. (Worth 8 marks)

8. For each of the following three arguments (a, b and c below) you must translate the premises

and conclusion into categorical statements and state whether the conclusion is deductively valid

or deductively invalid. If the conclusion is deductively invalid, state all rules of the categorical

syllogism that are broken. Note that the first premise in (b) is an anastrophe; i.e. a speech act in

which the normal subject-verb-predicate order is changed. (Worth 18 marks) (a)It is false to say that some political science professors are not money-grubbers. All

socialists are money-grubbers. So, it is not true that all professors of political science are

socialists.(b) Your father, he is. But he murdered your father. So, it is false that the murderer of your

father is him.(c) Some mothers are persons who find small children extremely irritating. It is false that

some persons who find small children extremely irritating are persons who just cannot

control themselves and suppress their rage. So some mothers are persons who just cannot

control themselves and suppress their rage. 9. The argument in the text box is a sorites. State the hidden premises which will make the main

conclusion come out deductively valid. (Worth 2 marks)

All cats are pets. No pests are pets. All rodents are pests and all rats are rodents. So, no cats are

rats.