LOUISIANA 103 MIDTERM QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
false - Answer -t/f: the use of analogical reasoning is pretty much limited to the legal
field
true - Answer -t/f: while deductive reasoning can lead to "truth" if all premises are true,
inductive reasoning can only lead to something that is more or less probably true
inductive reasoning - Answer -professor mongue is bald
professor mcelreath is bald
professor manson is bald
professor mitchel is balf
therefore, all male professors whose last name starts with "m" is bald
this is an example of what?
false - Answer -t/f: if the premises of an inductive reasoning argument are true, the
conclusion must be true
false - Answer -t/f: one problem with analogical reasoning is that there is no good way
to judge the strength of such an argument
true - Answer -t/f: not every similarityfalse increases the probability of the conclusion
and not every difference decreases it. some similarities and differences are known to be
(or accepted as being) utterly irrelevant and should have no influence whatsoever on
our probability judgements. attorneys using analogies have to be particularly aware of
this. courts are only interested in legal precedent when the new case is similar to the old
case in legally relevant ways
false - Answer -t/f: like deductive reasoning, analogical reasoning must lead to a true
result if the premises are true
analogy - Answer -apples are to fruit as peas are to vegetables is an example of an
_________________________________.
true - Answer -t/f: people who like to argue do not necessarily make good lawyers
false - Answer -t/f: this is an example of inductive reasoning:
all dogs like to play fetch
my pet is a dog
therefore, my pet likes to play fetch
true - Answer -t/f: In many ways, the third element in the BLAST list — a concept of
argument (A) — is the root of all informal logics. In ordinary discourse, the word "argue"
can mean "to disagree," usually with the further implication that someone does so
aggressively. Informal logics, like other logics, assume a narrower conception of
, argument (so called "argument-1"), which understands an argument as an attempt to
resolve disagreement (or potential disagreement) by providing reasons for accepting the
point of view that it advances. So, people who say, "I'll be a good lawyer because I like
to argue" may be using the wrong meaning of "argue," because legal professionals do
not simply disagree, they provide reasonings for accepting a point of view.
true - Answer -t/f: the role of symbols in symbolic logic is much the same as the role of
symbols such as +./.2, 5, and 10 in math
false - Answer -t/f: deductive logic was initially developed by Aristotle over 2,000 years
ago, so it has no bearing on the study of logic today
true - Answer -t/f: in the art of persuasion, invalid arguments often work better than
valid arguments. so, the goal of studying the validity of arguments is to help keep us
from being persuaded by invalid arguments
true - Answer -t/f: if it were bright and sunny today, I would have worn my sunglasses. i
did not wear my sunglasses, so it was not bright and sunny today
this is an example of modus tollens
true - Answer -t/f: the validity of deductive arguments is a matter of form. if the
argument's form is such that the premises cannot both be true without the conclusion
also being true, then the argument is valid, even if one of the premises is not true
syllogism - Answer -an argument consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a
conclusion, is a ______________________________.
true - Answer -t/f: inductive logic is tested by the strength of the evidence supporting
the inductive argument, so it is particularly dangerous to legal professionals since
evaluation of an argument's strength can be influenced by cognitive biases and logical
fallacies
true - Answer -t/f: the term "inference" can be used in deductive, inductive, and
analogical reasoning
valid - Answer -an argument with a major premise, minor premise, and conclusion is
________________________________ if the form of the argument is such that the
conclusion must be true if both premises are true
false - Answer -t/f: there is only one type of syllogism
true - Answer -t/f: the strength of an inductive argument can be affected by adding
premises. some additions will make the argument stronger. others will make it weaker
false - Answer -t/f: analogical arguments are unlike deductive and inductive arguments
because they have no structure
false - Answer -t/f: the use of analogical reasoning is pretty much limited to the legal
field
true - Answer -t/f: while deductive reasoning can lead to "truth" if all premises are true,
inductive reasoning can only lead to something that is more or less probably true
inductive reasoning - Answer -professor mongue is bald
professor mcelreath is bald
professor manson is bald
professor mitchel is balf
therefore, all male professors whose last name starts with "m" is bald
this is an example of what?
false - Answer -t/f: if the premises of an inductive reasoning argument are true, the
conclusion must be true
false - Answer -t/f: one problem with analogical reasoning is that there is no good way
to judge the strength of such an argument
true - Answer -t/f: not every similarityfalse increases the probability of the conclusion
and not every difference decreases it. some similarities and differences are known to be
(or accepted as being) utterly irrelevant and should have no influence whatsoever on
our probability judgements. attorneys using analogies have to be particularly aware of
this. courts are only interested in legal precedent when the new case is similar to the old
case in legally relevant ways
false - Answer -t/f: like deductive reasoning, analogical reasoning must lead to a true
result if the premises are true
analogy - Answer -apples are to fruit as peas are to vegetables is an example of an
_________________________________.
true - Answer -t/f: people who like to argue do not necessarily make good lawyers
false - Answer -t/f: this is an example of inductive reasoning:
all dogs like to play fetch
my pet is a dog
therefore, my pet likes to play fetch
true - Answer -t/f: In many ways, the third element in the BLAST list — a concept of
argument (A) — is the root of all informal logics. In ordinary discourse, the word "argue"
can mean "to disagree," usually with the further implication that someone does so
aggressively. Informal logics, like other logics, assume a narrower conception of
, argument (so called "argument-1"), which understands an argument as an attempt to
resolve disagreement (or potential disagreement) by providing reasons for accepting the
point of view that it advances. So, people who say, "I'll be a good lawyer because I like
to argue" may be using the wrong meaning of "argue," because legal professionals do
not simply disagree, they provide reasonings for accepting a point of view.
true - Answer -t/f: the role of symbols in symbolic logic is much the same as the role of
symbols such as +./.2, 5, and 10 in math
false - Answer -t/f: deductive logic was initially developed by Aristotle over 2,000 years
ago, so it has no bearing on the study of logic today
true - Answer -t/f: in the art of persuasion, invalid arguments often work better than
valid arguments. so, the goal of studying the validity of arguments is to help keep us
from being persuaded by invalid arguments
true - Answer -t/f: if it were bright and sunny today, I would have worn my sunglasses. i
did not wear my sunglasses, so it was not bright and sunny today
this is an example of modus tollens
true - Answer -t/f: the validity of deductive arguments is a matter of form. if the
argument's form is such that the premises cannot both be true without the conclusion
also being true, then the argument is valid, even if one of the premises is not true
syllogism - Answer -an argument consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a
conclusion, is a ______________________________.
true - Answer -t/f: inductive logic is tested by the strength of the evidence supporting
the inductive argument, so it is particularly dangerous to legal professionals since
evaluation of an argument's strength can be influenced by cognitive biases and logical
fallacies
true - Answer -t/f: the term "inference" can be used in deductive, inductive, and
analogical reasoning
valid - Answer -an argument with a major premise, minor premise, and conclusion is
________________________________ if the form of the argument is such that the
conclusion must be true if both premises are true
false - Answer -t/f: there is only one type of syllogism
true - Answer -t/f: the strength of an inductive argument can be affected by adding
premises. some additions will make the argument stronger. others will make it weaker
false - Answer -t/f: analogical arguments are unlike deductive and inductive arguments
because they have no structure
