PHIL 347N WEEK 6 CHECKPOINT QUIZ
What are the three fundamental reasoning strategies listed in the text?
1. Comparative Reasoning
2. Ideological Reasoning
3. Empirical Reasoning
What is comparative reasoning?
On what skill is it based?
Comparative reasoning (this-is-like-that thinking)
enables us to make interpretations, draw inferences, or offer explanations by relying on something that
is more familiar to understand something that is less familiar.
*We learned four tests for evaluating arguments:
1. truthfulness of the premises
2. logical strength
3. relevance
4. non-circularity.
*How well do these tests work with respect to evaluating comparative reasoning?
*Consider each of the four tests.
·1. Are the premises all True?
True and false are not optimal for evaluating a sentence that asserts a comparison- DOES NOT WORK
2. Are there counter examples and how difficult is it to imagine them ?
, This question helps gauge the logical strength of the analogy. It helps to categorize comparisons as more
or less plausible. DOES NOT WORK comparative reasoning because there are too many cases of
similarities and dissimilarities.
3. Are the premises relevant to the truth of the conclusion?
The argument maker relies on observations to make comparisons vs facts to understand something that
is not familiar, so the test of relevance DOES NOT WORK in comparative reasoning, since it requires that
the truth of the conclusion depends of the truth of the reason.
4. Does the truth of any premise depend on the truth of the conclusion?
Comparative interference should flow from what we know to what we project to be true. Lastly this
DOES NOT WORK because in comparative reasoning there is unfamiliarity. If something is unfamiliar it is
hard to connect premise and conclusion.
The four tests for evaluating comparative reasoning does not work with respect to evaluating
comparative reasoning.
Briefly explain how we can determine if one comparison is more comprehensive than another.
One comparison is more comprehensive than another when it uses familiar, simple explanations that
are easily comprehended and can be tested and are productive. Explanation the book gives is teaching a
student to swing an axe, by using the example of swinging a bat and then showing the student how to
do it, so they can visualize it and complete the task.
*According to the text, the basic question to ask when evaluating a comparison between two objects or
ideas or events is "Are they alike enough in the important ways or not?" (p. 248).
*What are those "important ways" that determine the credibility of conclusions based on similarities?
Superior comparative inferences determine the credibility of a conclusion if they are:
What are the three fundamental reasoning strategies listed in the text?
1. Comparative Reasoning
2. Ideological Reasoning
3. Empirical Reasoning
What is comparative reasoning?
On what skill is it based?
Comparative reasoning (this-is-like-that thinking)
enables us to make interpretations, draw inferences, or offer explanations by relying on something that
is more familiar to understand something that is less familiar.
*We learned four tests for evaluating arguments:
1. truthfulness of the premises
2. logical strength
3. relevance
4. non-circularity.
*How well do these tests work with respect to evaluating comparative reasoning?
*Consider each of the four tests.
·1. Are the premises all True?
True and false are not optimal for evaluating a sentence that asserts a comparison- DOES NOT WORK
2. Are there counter examples and how difficult is it to imagine them ?
, This question helps gauge the logical strength of the analogy. It helps to categorize comparisons as more
or less plausible. DOES NOT WORK comparative reasoning because there are too many cases of
similarities and dissimilarities.
3. Are the premises relevant to the truth of the conclusion?
The argument maker relies on observations to make comparisons vs facts to understand something that
is not familiar, so the test of relevance DOES NOT WORK in comparative reasoning, since it requires that
the truth of the conclusion depends of the truth of the reason.
4. Does the truth of any premise depend on the truth of the conclusion?
Comparative interference should flow from what we know to what we project to be true. Lastly this
DOES NOT WORK because in comparative reasoning there is unfamiliarity. If something is unfamiliar it is
hard to connect premise and conclusion.
The four tests for evaluating comparative reasoning does not work with respect to evaluating
comparative reasoning.
Briefly explain how we can determine if one comparison is more comprehensive than another.
One comparison is more comprehensive than another when it uses familiar, simple explanations that
are easily comprehended and can be tested and are productive. Explanation the book gives is teaching a
student to swing an axe, by using the example of swinging a bat and then showing the student how to
do it, so they can visualize it and complete the task.
*According to the text, the basic question to ask when evaluating a comparison between two objects or
ideas or events is "Are they alike enough in the important ways or not?" (p. 248).
*What are those "important ways" that determine the credibility of conclusions based on similarities?
Superior comparative inferences determine the credibility of a conclusion if they are:
