Explore BrainMass
Share

Philosophy arguments

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

1. Arguments are inductive if they are invalid.
(True or false and Explain why??)

2. A valid argument can have a false conclusion.
(Explain why and If true, then give an example??)

3. The claim "The earth is round" is a valid statement.
(True or false and Explain why??)

4. A logically sound argument may be invalid.
(True or false and Explain why??)

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 16, 2018, 3:49 pm ad1c9bdddf
https://brainmass.com/philosophy/logic-critical-thinking/philosophy-arguments-5459

Solution Preview

Hi There,
<br>
<br>Here are your answers:
<br>
<br>1. True. The difference between inductive and deductive argument is not an issue that is settled as easily as one might hope. There are those that think the difference between inductive and deductive arguments is dependent on what kind of argument the author intends. Nevertheless, this can't be the whole story. For sometimes an author intends an argument to be deductively valid; and sometimes an author intends an argument to be inductively strong; and sometimes an author doesn't know the difference. So, we will say that the main difference between an inductive argument and a deductive argument is by how much support the premises (reasons) give for the conclusion. In the case of deductive arguments, the premises, if true, guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Inductive arguments, however, do not provide such a guarantee. Since they don't guarantee the truth of the conclusion we need a new way to evaluate arguments instead of valid and sound.
<br>
<br>Now it is true that all inductive argument are not valid (invalid); however, this is not a criticism of them because they are not designed to provide complete support for their conclusions. Or if one prefers the intention distinction between inductive and deductive arguments, then one could claim that they are not intended to be valid. Either way, one should not refer to an inductive argument as either valid or sound. When evaluating an inductive argument, we want to talk about how strong or weak the support of the premises is for the conclusion. So, we will evaluate inductive arguments as either strong or weak. Let's look at the difference between inductive and deductive arguments.
<br>
<br>(Source of above info: http://mailer.fsu.edu/~cpynes/Inductive_Arguments.htm)
<br>
<br>2. FALSE. Put most simply, if an argument is valid, the truth of the premises insures the truth of the conclusion. Otherwise put, if an argument is valid, there will be no case in which all the premises are true and the conclusion is false. The following argument, for example, is valid:
<br>
<br>All A are B
<br>All B are C
<br>(therefore) All A are C (By convention, the horizontal line separates the premises from the conclusion.)
<br>
<br>Think about the argument above. Could you substitute terms in for A, B, and C (substituting consistently, of course) such that the two premises come out true but the conclusion false? Experiment for a moment to see if you can do this. Eventually, you will be convinced that you can't. (And no, you cannot subsitute so as to have the same word but with two different meanings - e.g. "plant" - that's a particular kind of error called "equivocation".)
<br>
<br>An informal way to gauge the validity of an argument is to ...

$2.19
Similar Posting

Clarification on Certain Concepts Found in J. Rachel's Philo Book

I am having difficulties understanding certain topics of ethics and I have put them in question form below: I need the answers to those questions to help me to prepare for my exam.. The answers will be very rewarding in helping me to understand the topics of Ethcis that we have covered in our class better.
(our book " The elements of Moral Philosophy" by James Rachels)

These are the questions that I find diffuclt to answer and I would appreciate it if you could provide short answers ( maybe one paragraph, that will allow me to understand the answer fully) in order for me to get rid of the confusion and better understand my topics and also better prepare for my test. The answers that you provide will be used as a study guide for my upcoming exam.

1. What does it mean to say that moral reasons or motives depend on God? What is the problem with this view?
(Fear of punishment and hope of reward are the motives for morality?)

2.What is Classical Utilitarianism? Why, according to this view, nonhuman animals are entitled to equal moral concern.

3.Utilitarians hold that the rightness and wrongness of actions depend only on their consequences. What is one of Rachels' criticisms of this view.

4. Rachels considers and rejects, the argument that ethical Egoism is compatible with commonsense morality. He says there are " two serious problems" with this argument. what are these problems?

5. One of the arguments in favor of " Psychological Egoism" is "The Argument that we always do what we most wanted to do". What are Rachels' two criticisms of this argument?

6. What are the differences between ethical egoism and Psychological egoism ?
(Psychological Egoism is concerned with how people do behave. Ethical Egoism is a theory about how we ought to behave... what are some other differences?)

View Full Posting Details