CRITICAL THINKING Assignment | Online Assignment

PHILOSOPHY 1290 (A04) – CRITICAL THINKING: DEFERRED FINAL EXAM
Instructor:
Instructions:
You have 24 hours to complete this exam from the time the exam was emailed to you.
To submit your answers, attach the file with your answers to an email (Word document or pdf)
and send the email to me: David.hampton@umanitoba.ca or to Steven.Brown@umanitoba.ca
Include your name and the course number (PHIL 1290) in the file name that you use to save the
document.
Answer all of the questions asked. This test is worth 40% of your final grade. The weight of each
question (in terms of marks) is in brackets with each question.
You will receive a 1-mark bonus (one time only) for including in your document (a) a picture of
the instructor’s cat ‘Piglet,’ (b) a pirate, or (c) a pirate-Piglet.
Question #1. Read the following argument in the text box below:
It is not fair to allow employers to deny someone a job because of one’s sexual orientation. Since
recent studies indicate that sexual orientation is likely genetically determined, it follows that it is
not a personal choice and we do not hold people accountable for things they have no choice over.
In addition to that, we do not discriminate on the basis of other characteristics (race, religion,
etc.) that are irrelevant to job performance. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is
relevant to job performance, so sexual orientation is like these other characteristics and fairness
demands that like cases be treated alike.
Represent (standardize) this argument. Your representation should indicate the premises, subconclusions
(if any) and main conclusion of the argument (a legend), and diagram the argument.
(Worth 12 marks)
Question #2. For each of the following two arguments (a and b 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. (Worth 10 marks)
(a) Heroin may feel good. But heroin is not truly good. So, some things that are truly good
are not things that may feel good.
(b) We know all too well that a system of legal punishment will on occasion convict and
punish by mistake individuals who are innocent. To admit this is merely to admit that
We Are Groot
well-intentioned human beings are fallible and imperfect and that their legal systems will
reflect these characteristics.
Question #3. Evaluate the argument that follows below. For each premise you will need to state
whether it is acceptable or unacceptable and provide the condition of premise
acceptability/unacceptability (use the conditions given by the instructor in class; do not use
‘common knowledge’ or ‘easy refutability’ as conditions or premise
acceptability/unacceptability). Note that for the sub-conclusion your answer as to its
acceptability will depend on your evaluation of the strength of the conclusion. For each inference
to a conclusion (there are three: 1+2→3, 3+4→6 and 5→6) you must identify whether the
inference is inductive or deductive and indicate whether it is strong or weak. Note that if the
inference is inductive, assessing the strength of the conclusion involves saying why you believe
the evidence is or is not sufficient to render the conclusion probable. (Worth 14 marks)
1. The complex material dealt with at university requires that students
be well grounded in basic skills of reading and writing.
2. According to many educators, elementary school teachers teach
students in their most formative years when basic skills are best taught.
3. Therefore, the job of elementary school teachers is more important
than that of university professors.
4. People should be paid according to the importance of their jobs to
society.
5. University professors are already overpaid.
6. Elementary school teachers should be better paid than university professors.
Question #4.
(a) Define the following terms as they relate to inductive generalizations (Worth 3 marks):
(i) Sample
(ii) Target population
(iii) Representative sample
(b) With large target populations relatively small sample sizes will often be sufficient to
establish a valid inductive generalization. Explain why this is the case and state the two
methods for ensuring sample representativeness. (Worth 3 marks)
(c) Read the excerpt in the text box below. State whether there is an inductive generalization
in the passage and if there is, identify the sample and target population and explain the
inductive strength of the generalization. (Worth 5 marks)
A naturalist is employed to estimate the population of elk in an area of a national park. He begins
by finding reports of sightings on four major hiking trails and at two major campsites. He
calculates that the area covered is about one-tenth of the total area of the park; the chance of an
elk being seen over a one-year period, given the use rate of the park, he calculates at 10 percent.
There were 20 sightings of elk; hence he estimates the elk population in the area at 2000.
Question #5.
(a) Define the following concepts (Worth 4 marks total):
1 2
3 4 5
+
+
6
We Are Groot
i. Sufficient cause
ii. Necessary cause
iii. Necessary and sufficient cause
iv. Contributory causal factor
(b) A positive correlation between two things or properties is relevant to establishing a causal
link but a valid causal inductive argument must provide additional evidence beyond a
positive correlation since a correlation between P and Q is consistent with four logical
possibilities. Identify those possibilities. (Worth 4 marks)
(c) The report in the following text box describes an experiment conducted among
University of Colorado undergraduates. Participants received simulated monthly checks
and were to declare income and pay tax. On the basis of random audits, it was determined
whether they had evaded taxes and penalties for evasion were imposed. State whether or
not the passage makes a causal claim and, if so, state the claim. Explain whether or not
the conclusion provides an inductively valid causal claim. (Worth 5 marks)
Everyone was told (correctly) that his own tax rate was 70 percent. One third of the group was
told (falsely) that others paid less taxes than they did; one-third was told that others paid more
taxes than they did; and the last one-third was told the truth, that its own rates were the same as
everyone else’s. Overall the group evaded about one dollar in four of tax. But those who felt they
were paying lower rates than everyone else evaded only 12 percent of their tax, while those who
felt they were paying more than everyone else evaded nearly one-third of their tax. In the
laboratory, and perhaps in life, compliance walks hand in hand with the perception of fairness
and equity. Destroy the latter, and whether there are penalties or not, compliance plunges.
Sloma Maital, “The Tax Evasion Virus” Psychology Today, March 1982
Question #6. The facts (1-10) below relate to an ‘inference to the best explanation’ argument.
The facts are drawn from the trial of Jian Ghomeshi on one charge of sexual assault in relation to
the complainant S.D. (R. v. Ghomeshi, 2016 ONCJ 156). The arguer here is the prosecution and
the arguer’s conclusion is that Mr. Ghomeshi intentionally applied force to the person of S.D. in
a sexual context without S.D.’s consent on a date sometime between July 15th, 2003 and 2nd
August 2003. Note that consent need not be explicit.
1. At the time of the incident, Mr. Ghomeshi was the host of a CBC television show called
‘PLAY.’ Subsequently, and for several years prior to when the complainant came forward in
2014, he was the host of a CBC radio show called Q. Q is a show which features interviews with
prominent cultural and entertainment figures. With Mr. Ghomeshi as the host Q enjoyed a large
and dedicated following, and M. Ghomeshi achieved some celebrity status within Canada.
2. At the time of the incident, S.D. was a dancer in a production performing in a Toronto park.
She knew, or knew of, Mr. Ghomeshi through her involvement in the arts and entertainment
industry and was a fan. Following a performance, Mr. Ghomeshi approached her and initiated a
conversation. This led to dinner and a second post-performance meeting in the park.
We Are Groot
3. On the date of the incident, after dark, S.D. and Mr. Ghomeshi strolled to a baseball diamond
for privacy. They sat on a bench and kissed. S.D. testified that while “making out” on the
secluded park bench:
S.D.: He [Ghomeshi] had his hand – it was sort of – it was sort of his hands were on my shoulders,
kind of on my arms here, and then it was – and then I felt his teeth and then his hands around my
neck… It was rough but – yeah, it was rough.
Question: Were his hands open, were they closed?
S.D.: It’s really hard for me to say, but it was just – I just felt his hands around my neck, all
around my neck, all around my neck… And I – I think I tried to – I tried to get out of it and then
his hand was on my mouth, sort of smothering me.
Question: Okay. I’m going to go back. So the hands were around your neck. How long were they
around your neck?
S.D.: Seconds. A few seconds. Ten seconds. I don’t even – I don’t – it’s hard to know. It’s hard to
know.
Question: And did his hands around your neck cause you any difficulties breathing?
S.D.: Yes.
4. S.D. indicated to police that nothing was said about the incident between S.D. and Ghomeshi
at the time. She told police that they socialized two or three more times in the days and weeks
following the incident in the park, and then had no further relationship. She indicated that these
occasions were always in public places – bars or restaurants.
5. S.D. met with Crown lawyers five times in the year leading up to the trial. On each occasion
she was reminded of the need to be completely honest and accurate. She said that she always
kept her distance from Mr. Ghomeshi after the incident and that she felt unsafe around him.
6. At trial S.D. revealed that on one of the occasions after the incident, S.D. took Mr. Ghomeshi
back to her home after leaving the bar, whereupon they “messed around.” S.D. gave Mr.
Ghomeshi a ‘hand job.’ He slept at her home for a while and went home.
7. S.D. said at trial that she did not think it important to disclose the intimate contact with Mr.
Ghomeshi after the incident. On cross-examination she acknowledged that she left things out of
her account to the police and Crown because she felt it didn’t fit “the pattern.” When pressed
further she said that she did not think what had happened between them at her home qualified as
sex.
8. On cross-examination S.D. revealed that on February 25, 2004, six months after the incident in
the park, S.D. sent Mr. Ghomeshi an email that included her asking him, “Still want to have that
drink sometime?”
9. S.D. initially testified that she and Ms. DeCoutere [another complainant alleging sexual
assault by Mr. Ghomeshi] never discussed the details of S.D.’s experience prior to S.D.’s police
interview. In cross-examination S.D. admitted that in fact she had done so.
10. Between October 29, 2014 and September 2015, S.D. and Ms. DeCoutere exchanged
approximately 5000 messages. They discussed witnesses, court dates, and meetings with the
prosecution. They described themselves as being “insta sisters.” They shared a publicist. They
initially shared the same lawyer. They spoke of together building a “Jenga Tower” against Mr.
We Are Groot