Question 1

Socratic method is:

a) A method of dialogue in which two people debate and try to get the better of one another.

b) A contest in which there are winners and losers.

c) A discussion in which the participants agree that the truth is different for each of them.

d) A discussion in which everyone is on the same side, the side of the search for truth.

Question 2

Using the Socratic method, when you disagree with someone, you should:

a) Ask a question.

b) Hide what you think to avoid making others uncomfortable.

c) State your disagreement in the boldest possible terms.

d) Decide not to participate in the discussion at all.

Question 3

The method of ‘Scholasticism' is one in which:

a) One argues as forcefully as one can for one's own position, and let's everyone else worry about alternative views.

b) One not only states one's position, but considers alternative views on the subject of discussion.

c) The discussion must take place inside a schoolroom in order to be in keeping with the rules.

d) One concentrates on showing why no one knows what they are talking about.

Question 4

An ‘argument analysis paper' begins with:

a) A criticism of the views of others.

b) The presentation of an argument.

c) A short biographical note about the author.

d) A statement of your thesis.

Question 5

Which of the following is not an element in a standard argument analysis paper:

a) A criticism of the views of others.

b) A statement of your thesis.

c) A statement of why the course for which the paper is being written is of interest to you.

d) A consideration of possible objections to your thesis.

Question 6

The goal of an argument analysis paper is to:

a) Convince the reader that your claims should be accepted even though you can't quite provide convincing evidence.

b) Show why your conclusion is well-supported by the evidence.

c) Get the reader to agree with you by appealing to the reader's values.

d) Show why your conclusion shouldn't even be open for discussion.

Question 7

In logic, an ‘argument' is:

a) A verbal dispute between persons.

b) A series of statements which provide both a claim and the evidence used to support it.

c) An unstructured way of writing to get the reader to endorse your point.

d) There are no arguments in logic.

Question 8

A statement that provides evidence for a claim is called:

a) A premise.

b) ‘Exhibit A'.

c) The conclusion.

d) A question.

Question 9

Arguments must have:

a) Any number of conclusions as long as there is at least one.

b) The two possible conclusions one can draw from the evidence.

c) One and only one premise.

d) At least one premise.

Question 10

A statement in logic is:

a) A balance sheet drawn up to express the pros and cons of an argument.

b) Any sentence in any language.

c) Something that you would take an oath to support.

d) A sentence that makes a claim that is either true or false.

Question 11

Which of the following is not a statement?

a) Socrates was an ancient Greek philosopher.

b) Socrates wasn't an ancient Greek philosopher.

c) Which of the following is not a statement?

d) Logic is confusing.

Question 12

Which of the following claims is true?

a) Every statement is just a matter of opinion.

b) Some statements are matters of opinion, and therefore without truth-values.

c) Each and every statement must have one and only one truth-value.

d) Some statements have more than one truth value, depending upon what you believe.

Question 13

A deductive argument is:

a) An argument which, if successful, demonstrates the necessity of its conclusion.

b) Any argument based upon evidence.

c) An argument that uses the method of subtraction to arrive at a true conclusion.

d) A logical impossibility.

Question 14

An inductive argument is:

a) An argument that is used to qualify for membership in an organization.

b) An argument which, if successful, demonstrates its conclusion to a high degree of probability.

c) An argument which fails to justify its conclusion.

d) Any good argument in logic.

Question 15

Which of the following is a property of valid arguments in logic?

a) The conclusion follows with necessity from the premises, if the premises are true.

b) Each of the premises of the argument must be true.

c) The conclusion of the argument must be true, no matter what.

d) All the components of the argument must be true.

Question 16

Which of the following statements is true about validity and strength in deductive and inductive arguments?:

a) Validity comes in degrees whereas strength does not.

b) Both validity and strength can be of different degrees.

c) Neither validity nor strength can come in degrees.

d) Strength can come in degrees whereas validity does not.

Question 17

Which of the following is not an inductive argument?:

a) An argument from authority.

b) An argument from analogy.

c) An argument from definition.

d) These three above are all inductive arguments.

Question 18

Which of the following kinds of arguments can prove the necessity of its conclusion?:

a) A prediction.

b) A causal argument.

c) A generalization.

d) None of these arguments can prove the necessity of its conclusion.

Question 19

In an ‘ad hominem' argument:

a) An attack on the person making the argument is substituted for an analysis of the argument itself.

b) An attack on the argument made by the person is swift and to the point.

c) The person making the argument is agreed with.

d) One refuses to discuss the person making the argument.

Question 20

In a ‘straw man' argument,

a) The argument that is proposed is carefully evaluated.

b) The argument that is proposed is shown to be flawed.

c) The argument that is proposed is ignored and another argument is substituted in its place.

d) The argument proposed is shown to be a good one.

Question 21

If an argument's premises state: "All frogs are amphibians", and "all amphibians are threatened with extinction," the valid conclusion to draw would be:

a) We must act immediately to protect wildlife.

b) This is not good.

c) All amphibians are frogs.

d) All frogs are threatened with extinction.

Question 22

If an argument's premises state: "If I go to the movies, I'll buy popcorn", and "if I buy popcorn, I'll buy a soda", the valid conclusion to draw would be:

a) If I go to the movies, I'll buy a soda.

b) I must be buying popcorn.

c) I don't know what I'm buying.

d) I really am buying a soda.

Question 23

If an argument's premises state: "If I am buying a soda, I am going to the movies", and "I am not buying a soda", the valid conclusion would be:

a) I'm going to the movies.

b) I'm not going to the movies.

c) There is not enough information to draw a valid conclusion.

d) I could change my mind about not buying a soda.

Question 24

The argument, "The last time I went to movies I broke my arm, therefore, to avoid breaking my arm I shouldn't go to the movies," is probably an example of:

a) Weak analogy.

b) False cause.

c) Red Herring.

d) Straw Man.

Question 25

The first systematic logic treatises in the philosophical tradition were written by:

a) Socrates.

b) Plato.

c) Aristotle.

d) They all wrote systematic logical treatises.