Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY
NSW 2109 AUSTRALIA
Unit Code
PHI!@)
Assignment No.
Assignment Title
Assesment Task 1
Due Date
Contact Info
403424484
joseph.zizys@gmail.com
Word Count:
Turnitin No.:
(If Applicable)
(If Applicable)
This declaration is a summary of the University policy on plagiarism. For the policy in full,
please refer to Student Information in the Handbook or
http://www.mq.edu.au/academichonesty
Student Name:
Zizys
Joseph
7/10/2011
This is an explanation of why Jasper took a lot of photos of mountains on his holiday, it
assumes the truth of the statement and does not seek to establish it.
QUESTION 2: [5 marks]
Standardise the following arguments. State whether any premises on the same level are
linked or convergent.
Barbie dolls are a bad influence on young girls, since all their accessories are pink, and
that just reinforces gender stereotypes. Also, Barbie dolls promote an unrealistic body
image.
Humans pose a threat to the survival of pandas. Pandas only eat bamboo, so it is
imperative for the survival of pandas that there are plentiful supplies of bamboo in the wild.
Unfortunately, human intervention has resulted in bamboo becoming less plentiful in the
wild, as large areas of bamboo are cleared each year to make way for more farming land.
In some areas, pandas are still also being hunted for their fur.
QUESTION 3: [5 marks]
Standardise the target argument and counterargument in the following passage. Include
any counterconsiderations and state whether any premises on the same level are linked or
convergent.
Some educationalists believe that although children in NSW are permitted to start school
when they are four and a half, those who have not yet turned five should be held back until
the following year. They argue that many four year olds are not ready for school, and
having young children in the year means that there is a very wide range of ages in a class
for the teachers to have to deal with. Also, they suggest that sending children early could
lead to problems later on, since children who reach puberty much later than their peers
may find it difficult to socialise. But parents should not have to hold their child back if they
believe the child is ready, since the individual development of the child is more relevant to
their readiness than their age, and parents are able to judge the development of their child.
And although having a wide range of ages in a class does pose challenges, the fact that
there is now such a wide range is as much a result of parents holding their children back
longer than they need to as it is a matter of sending them early. It should also be noted that
children reaching puberty before their peers may have as many difficulties socialising as
those who reach puberty later.
ARGUMENT:
C Some educationalists believe that although children in NSW are permitted to start school
when they are four and a half, those who have not yet turned five should be held back until
the following year.
1 They argue that many four year olds are not ready for school,
2 and having young children in the year means that there is a very wide range of ages in a
class for the teachers to have to deal with.
3 Also, they suggest that sending children early could lead to problems later on,
since children who reach puberty much later than their peers may find it difficult to
socialise.
COUNTERARGUMENT:
C But parents should not have to hold their child back if they believe the child is ready,
1 since the individual development of the child is more relevant to their readiness than their
age,
1.1 and parents are able to judge the development of their child.
2 And although having a wide range of ages in a class does pose challenges,
the fact that there is now such a wide range is as much a result of parents holding their
children back longer than they need to as it is a matter of sending them early.
3 It should also be noted that children reaching puberty before their peers may have as
many difficulties socialising as those who reach puberty later.
All 3 premises in the argument are convergent, all three premises at the top level of the
counterargument are convergent, counterargument premise 2 is a counterconsideration for
argument premise 2 and likewise 3 for 3. Premise 1 from the argument is inductive and is
countered with a deductive counterconsideration in the counterargument.
QUESTION 4 [3 marks]
Give THREE examples of conditional statements to which someone who eats popcorn
when they're not at the movies would be a counterexample.
All popcorn eating happens at the movies.
Only moviegoers eat popcorn.
if a person is eating popcorn then they are at the movies.
QUESTION 5 [2 marks]
Give an example of an argument with the form "denying the necessary condition" and the
conclusion:
C: It isn't safe to drink the water
Water is only safe to drink when it has been filtered.
This water hasnt been filtered.
Therefore it isn't safe to drink the water.
QUESTION 6 [4 marks]
Standardise the following argument. State the form (e.g. affirming the necessary) of any
conditional arguments or subarguments, and state whether they are valid or invalid.
The Prince will marry Cinderella if the glass slipper fits her. The glass slipper will only fit
someone with very small feet, but Cinderella does have very small feet, so the glass
slipper will fit Cinderella, and the Prince will marry her
1 The Prince will marry Cinderella if the glass slipper fits her.
1.1.1 The glass slipper will only fit someone with very small feet,
1.1.2 but Cinderella does have very small feet,
1.1 so the glass slipper will fit Cinderella,
C and the Prince will marry her
1.1 affirms the neccesery condition of the slipper fitting. 1.1.2 affirms the neccesery of
having small feet. Both the inner conditional and the outer one are valid.
QUESTION 7 [4 marks]
Give an example of (a) a standardised inductive argument, and (b) a standardised
deductive argument, which could be given to support the conclusion:
C: This movie will give Timmy nightmares.
Explain your answers in part (i): What makes argument (a) inductive and argument (b)
deductive?
(a)
1 Almost every time we watch a horror movie, it gives Timmy Nightmares
1.1 This movie is probably a horror movie.
C: This movie will give Timmy nightmares.
Timmy does not always have nightmares from watching horror movies, but he often does,
so it is probable that Timmy will have a nightmare watching what is probably a horror
movie.
(b)
1 Horror movies give Timmy nightmares
1.1 This movie is a horror movie
C: This movie will give Timmy nightmares.
This argument makes no references to probabilities or appeals to experience, it simply
states as fact that a certain type of movie gives Timmy nightmares and states that Timmy
is watching this type of movie, the conclusion is therefore deductive.
QUESTION 8 [4 marks]
Can a valid argument with false premises have a true conclusion? If not, why not? If so,
give an example and explain your answer.
A valid argument with false premises can have a true conclusion, as in;
All rocks are intelligent beings.
Socrates is a rock.
Therefore Socrates is an intelligent being.
Both premises of this argument are false, rocks aren't intelligent, and Socrates is not a
rock, but the form of the argument is valid; all As are Bs, x is an A, therefore x is a B. and
the conclusion is true, Socrates is an intelligent being.
Give an example of an argument that could be standardized with the following premise
numbers:
1.1 Rogers alarm clock broke down.
1.2 Without an alarm, Roger wont wake up.
1 So Roger oversleeps.
2 Rogers meeting has been moved forward an hour anyway.
C: Roger will be late.
Where 1.1 and 1.2 are linked premises, and 1 and 2 are convergent.