RI Critical Thinking 2023 Exercise F Answers

Exercise F Evaluate the following arguments. Draw an arrow diagram first. 1. *A ship has gone down in the ocean and half the passengers have been killed. Your best friend Angela was on board but you do not know if she was one of the survivors. At once, you utter a prayer to God that she survived. “Your prayer is pointless. For your prayer is superfluous if Angela survived. And if she did not survive, then God can hardly answer your prayer since, despite all His powers, he cannot do the impossible, and it is impossible to alter the past.” Deductive argument. There seems to be a few weak points in the argument. One, that God works IN time. Surely God, being almighty, could be out of time such that your prayer, retrospective as it may seem to you, is NOT retrospective to Him. If so, then whether Angela survives or not could be due to your prayer. Two, is it really impossible to alter the past? Three, can God being all-powerful be unable to do the impossible? Dilemma is a valid form of argument that goes something like this: Either p or q If p then r If q then r Therefore r 2. Whatever consists mostly of empty space isn’t solid. But the chair I sit on consists mostly of empty space since it consists of billions of atoms, each of which consists mostly of empty space. This last is true since each atom consists of a tiny central core If Angela survived, your prayer is superfluous God, despite all His powers, cannot do the impossible It is impossible to alter the past God cannot alter the past If Angela did not survive, then your prayer is asking God to alter the past Your prayer to God is that Angela survived If Angela did not survive, then God cannot answer your prayer If God cannot answer your prayer, then your prayer is pointless If Angela did not survive, then your prayer is pointless Your prayer to God is that Angela survived If your prayer is superfluous, then your prayer is pointless If Angela survived, then your prayer is pointless Either Angela survived or Angela did not survive Your prayer is pointless Not clear if valid Not clear if valid Valid Valid Hypothetical syllogism Hypothetical syllogism Dilemma An atom consists of a tiny central core surrounded by tiny electrons situated at a relatively large distance from the core

surrounded by tiny electrons situated at a relatively large distance from the core. It follows that the chair I sit on isn’t solid. How on earth does it support my weight? The premise, “Whatever consists mostly of empty space isn’t solid”, is false. To prove this, raise a counter-example. A simple one would be a hollow box. It consists mostly of empty space but is solid. Counter-examples are a great way to prove that an argument is unsound by showing that a particular premise is false. 3. Either that bomb is going to kill me or it is not. If it is going to kill me, then any precautions I take will be ineffective. But if it is not going to kill me, then any precautions I take will be superfluous. So any precautions I take against that bomb are either ineffective or superfluous. So there is no point going into that bomb shelter. The argument is fallacious because it could be the case that the bomb did not kill me because I went into the bomb shelter. This, however, was a popular argument during the time of the World Wars. 4. President Sarkozy is a man of no political integrity, willing to do whatever needs to be done in order to triumph at the elections. Just look at his recent actions. Less than three weeks before the first round of the presidential election, one of the biggest crackdowns on suspected radical Islamists in recent French memory happened. The Whatever consists mostly of empty space isn’t solid An atom consists mostly of empty space The chair I sit on consists of billions of atoms The chair I sit on consists mostly of empty space The chair I sit on isn’t solid If an atom consists mostly of empty space, then billions of atoms consist mostly of empty space Billions of atoms consist mostly of empty space Valid Valid, modus ponens Valid False Valid Either the bomb is going to kill me or it is not If that bomb is going to kill me, then any precautions I take against that bomb will be ineffective If that bomb is not going to kill me, then any precautions I take against that bomb will be superfluous. Any precautions I take against that bomb will be either ineffective or superfluous If any precautions I take against that bomb will be either ineffective or superfluous, then there is no point going into the bomb shelter There is no point going into the bomb shelter Valid, modus ponens Valid, dilemma

timing and the presence of the television crew are as much linked to electioneering as to anti-terrorist crime prevention. In likening the Toulouse killings to France’s 9/11, Sarkozy is obviously using the opportunity to style himself as the only trustworthy protector of the nation in the face of the serious threat. The danger, it now seems, is Islamist fundamentalism and terrorism, when just a month ago, it was impending financial meltdown! MC1: Sarkozy is a man of no political integrity. P1: Less than three weeks before the first round of the presidential election, one of the biggest crackdowns on suspected radical Islamists in recent French memory happened and was timely covered by television crew. P2: The presence and timing of the television crew coverage of the anti-terrorist crackdown are unusual features of a wide-scale police crackdown and can only be explained by a tip-off by a high-ranking government official who knew about the operation (implicit) (questionable, false cause). P3: The tip-off was given by Sarkozy, a presidential candidate at the upcoming presidential elections (implicit) (questionable). SC1: Sarkozy was responsible for media presence at one of the biggest crackdowns on suspected radical Islamists in recent French memory (P1-P3) (possibly unsound) P4: Sarkozy likened the Toulouse killings to France’s 9/11 and has changed his views of what is dangerous to France – from impending financial meltdown just a month ago to Islamist fundamentalism and terrorism. P5: If P4, then Sarkozy is obviously using the opportunity to style himself as the only trustworthy protector of the nation in the face of the serious threat (questionable, false cause). SC2: Sarkozy is obviously using the opportunity to style himself as the only trustworthy protector of the nation in the face of the serious threat. (P4, P5) P6: If SC1 and SC2, then his recent actions show Sarkozy to be willing to do whatever needs to be done in order to triumph at the elections (implicit) (questionable). SC3: His recent actions show Sarkozy to be willing to do whatever needs to be done in order to triumph at the elections (SC1-2, P6) P7: If SC3, then Sarkozy is a man of no political integrity (implicit) (questionable, hasty generalization). MC1: Sarkozy is a man of no political integrity (SC3, P7) (valid, unsound) Analysis P2: While P2 sounds very plausible, it is not necessarily true. The presence and timing of TV coverage of an anti-terrorist crackdown could be entirely coincidental, or be explained by the fact that given the many terrorist attacks that happened prior to this crackdown, the TV crew were already on the lookout for such a crackdown and therefore responded very swiftly to cover the action when it happened. This can be considered to be a case of false cause. This then renders the first part of the argument valid but unsound. P3: This is potentially problematic because if there was indeed a tip-off, it may not have come from Sarkozy. It is possible to reason that one of his allies or at least someone who wanted him to succeed tipped off the media in order to boost Sarkozy’s ratings without linking the action directly to him (sounds like a scene from the movies!). While this de-links the tactic to Sarkozy, it can still be considere