Week 6 Quiz Phil347
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_e956qj
1. What are the three fundamental rea- 1. Comparative Reasoning
soning strategies listed in the text? 2. Ideological Reasoning
3. Empirical Reasoning
2. What is comparative reasoning? Comparative reasoning (this-is-like-that thinking)
On what skill is it based? 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.
3. *We learned four tests for evaluating ·1. Are the premises all True?
arguments: True and false are not optimal for evaluating a sen-
1. truthfulness of the premises tence that asserts a comparison- DOES NOT WORK
2. logical strength 2. Are there counter examples and how difficult is it to
3. relevance imagine them ?
4. non-circularity. This question helps gauge the logical strength of the
*How well do these tests work with analogy. It helps to categorize comparisons as more
respect to evaluating comparative or less plausible. DOES NOT WORK comparative rea-
reasoning? soning because there are too many cases of similari-
*Consider each of the four tests. ties and dissimilarities.
3. Are the premises relevant to the truth of the con-
clusion?
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
1/5
, Week 6 Quiz Phil347
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_e956qj
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.
4. Briefly explain how we can deter- One comparison is more comprehensive than an-
mine if one comparison is more com- other when it uses familiar, simple explanations that
prehensive than another. 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.
5. *According to the text, the basic Superior comparative inferences determine the cred-
question to ask when evaluating a ibility of a conclusion if they are:
comparison between two objects or 1. familiar
ideas or events is "Are they alike 2. simple
enough in the important ways or 3. comprehensive
not?" (p. 248). 4. productive
*What are those "important ways" 5. testable.
that determine the credibility of con-
clusions based on similarities?
6. In your own words, define empirical empirical reasoning (or bottom up thinking) is that
reasoning. process of thinking that proceeds from premises de-
scribing interpersonally verifiable experiences in or-
der to support or to disconfirm hypotheses, which, in
turn, are intended to explain and predict phenom-
ena. Empirical reasoning is fundamentally inductive,
2/5
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_e956qj
1. What are the three fundamental rea- 1. Comparative Reasoning
soning strategies listed in the text? 2. Ideological Reasoning
3. Empirical Reasoning
2. What is comparative reasoning? Comparative reasoning (this-is-like-that thinking)
On what skill is it based? 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.
3. *We learned four tests for evaluating ·1. Are the premises all True?
arguments: True and false are not optimal for evaluating a sen-
1. truthfulness of the premises tence that asserts a comparison- DOES NOT WORK
2. logical strength 2. Are there counter examples and how difficult is it to
3. relevance imagine them ?
4. non-circularity. This question helps gauge the logical strength of the
*How well do these tests work with analogy. It helps to categorize comparisons as more
respect to evaluating comparative or less plausible. DOES NOT WORK comparative rea-
reasoning? soning because there are too many cases of similari-
*Consider each of the four tests. ties and dissimilarities.
3. Are the premises relevant to the truth of the con-
clusion?
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
1/5
, Week 6 Quiz Phil347
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_e956qj
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.
4. Briefly explain how we can deter- One comparison is more comprehensive than an-
mine if one comparison is more com- other when it uses familiar, simple explanations that
prehensive than another. 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.
5. *According to the text, the basic Superior comparative inferences determine the cred-
question to ask when evaluating a ibility of a conclusion if they are:
comparison between two objects or 1. familiar
ideas or events is "Are they alike 2. simple
enough in the important ways or 3. comprehensive
not?" (p. 248). 4. productive
*What are those "important ways" 5. testable.
that determine the credibility of con-
clusions based on similarities?
6. In your own words, define empirical empirical reasoning (or bottom up thinking) is that
reasoning. process of thinking that proceeds from premises de-
scribing interpersonally verifiable experiences in or-
der to support or to disconfirm hypotheses, which, in
turn, are intended to explain and predict phenom-
ena. Empirical reasoning is fundamentally inductive,
2/5
