1. What is the conclusion of this argument? If sea levels rise dramatically then some low islands are at danger of disappearing. The Maldives are coral islands in the Indian Ocean none of which are more than six feet above sea level. Islands whose highest points are less than three meters above sea level are low islands. The Maldives are at danger if oceans rise, for six feet is obviously less than three meters. a. If sea levels rise dramatically then some low islands are at danger of disappearing. b. The Maldives are coral islands in the Indian Ocean none of which are more than six feet above sea level. c. Islands whose highest points are less than three meters above sea level are low islands. d. The Maldives are at danger if oceans rise. e. Six feet is obviously less than three meters. 2. Read or listen to Patrick Henry's 'Give Me Liberty' speech. Identify and reconstruct at least one of Henry's arguments. Put it into standard form, paraphrasing and adding premises if necessary. You can find the text and audio of the speech here: http://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/giveme.cfm 3. Reconstruct (but don't evaluate) the arguments at the end of Supplemental Reading: Introduction to Arguments. Put the arguments into standard form, adding premises where necessary. The arguments are repeated here for convenience: A. We have an obligation to do whatever our employer tells us to do. This is clear because employees are the property of employers. Also, property is controlled by its owner and people have to do something if they are controlled to do it. B. We discover our moral obligations by looking at the animal kingdom. Whatever the animal kingdom does is natural. So, we have a moral obligation to do what is natural. Chemotherapy is not natural. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to avoid chemotherapy. C. If Keynes is right then governments should spend more in a recession. But obviously, governments should not spend more in a recession; they should spend less. So, Keynes is wrong. D. Shamu is a whale; so Shamu is a mammal. Since mammals bear live young, Shamu bears live young. E. Alberto Gonzales said that the U.S. cannot wait for another terrorist attack. If we can't wait for something then we eagerly anticipate it. So if Gonzales was right then the U.S. eagerly anticipates a terrorist attack. F. Karen would like nothing more than for her son to come home for Christmas. Karen's son did nothing for her for Christmas. Consequently, Karen liked what she got from her son more than she would have liked his coming home. 4. Consider the following argument and say which sentence is a sub-conclusion (both a premise and a conclusion). There is substantial evidence that Abner Doubleday did not invent baseball. He made no mention of it in his many letters and papers. He certainly would have mentioned the sport if he had invented it. Furthermore, the first recorded attribution of the sport's invention to Doubleday-a 1908 commission report-claimed that Doubleday invented the sport in Cooperstown in 1839. However, he was enrolled at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point (>150 mi. trip) at that time and there is no evidence that he obtained leave. The current Major League Baseball commissioner, Bud Selig, believes that Doubleday did invent the game. Since there is evidence that Doubleday did not invent the sport and Bud Selig still believes that he did, Bud Selig is an idiot. a. There is evidence that Abner Doubleday did not invent baseball. b. He made no mention of it in his many letters and papers. c. He would have mentioned the sport if he had invented it. d. Bud Selig believes that Doubleday did invent the game. e. Bud Selig is an idiot. 5. In his 2008 movie Religulous, Bill Maher argues that the U.S.'s founding fathers weren't as religious as they're taken to be. In defense he mentions that John Adams said (A) This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it. The quote is taken from an 1817 letter to Thomas Jefferson in which Adams says (B) Twenty times in the course of my late Reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out "This would be the best of all possible Worlds if there were no Religion in it"!!! But in this exclamation I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to mention in polite company, I mean Hell. The longer quotation from Adams reveals a point much different from what's implied by the shorter one. Is it possible to criticize the evidence that Maher offers for his conclusion? Why? a. No. The movie is billed as a comedy and it is inappropriate to critically analyze a comedy since the claims are not intended to be taken seriously. b. No. (A) is contained in (B) so it is not possible to say (B) without saying (A). Since Adams said (B) it follows that Adams said (A). So it is appropriate to say that he said (A). c. Yes. It would only be evidence that Adams wasn't religious if he had used sentence (A). Instead he mentioned sentence (A). d. Yes. Maher has a history of mocking religion by employing deceptive tactics and misleading editing. This is just another example. e. Yes and no. Maher is not a credible authority on the words of John Adams. We have little reason to think that an entertainer like Maher would quote Adams correctly. So we shouldn't accept his evidence but we also shouldn't hold him to too high a standard. 6. Say whether the following words are (just) vague, (just) ambiguous, both vague and ambiguous, or neither. Briefly justify your answer. (a) Middle class (b) Odd number (c) Gold (d) Bank (e) Opportunity (f) Socialist (g) Credit 7. Some of the arguments you reconstructed for number 3 above equivocate. Say which arguments are equivocations. Also, say what the possible meanings of the ambiguous word or phrase are. 8. The phrase 'tax rate' is at least three ways ambiguous. There's the rate on paper (before deductions), the effective rate (amount paid as a percentage of profits), and total amount paid as a percentage of GDP. Watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj10f7v1xaU) and reconstruct at least one of the arguments presented. Then watch this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXzapM9useA) and say whether Buffet (the guy in the second video) gives a criticism of the argument you found in the first video, or a different argument. If he gives a criticism, say whether it's of a premise or the form. If he gives a different argument, reconstruct it.