PLS2601 Assignment 2 (100% COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 1 2025

Critical Reasoning - PLS2601 Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025 ;100 % TRUSTED workings, Expert Solved, Explanations and Solutions. For assistance call or W.h.a.t.s.a.p.p us on ...(.+.2.5.4.7.7.9.5.4.0.1.3.2)........... QUESTION 1: SHORT NARRATIVE QUESTIONS: Instructions for these short Questions: Write short answers for each question. The number alongside each question is the total mark for the question. 1.1 What is an argument? An argument is a set of statements where premises (reasons/evidence) are provided to support a conclusion (the main claim being argued for). (2) 1.2 Briefly describe a deductive argument (3) A deductive argument aims for logical necessity: if the premises are true, the true premises conclusion must be true. It is structured to ensure validity (i.e., no scenario exists where lead to a false conclusion). 1.3 What is the difference between ‘false appeal to authority’ and ‘Appeal to force’ fallacies? False appeal to authority: Citing an untrustworthy or irrelevant authority to support a claim. Appeal to force: Using threats or coercion instead of reasoning. Difference: The former misuses expertise; the latter uses intimidation. 1.4 How can one distinguish between ‘instructive’ and ‘descriptive’ writings? Instructive writing Directs the reader (e.g., manuals, recipes). Descriptive writing: Explains or depicts a subject (e.g., novels, reports). Key difference: Instructive is prescriptive; descriptive is explanatory. 1.5 What is the difference between ‘sound’ and ‘valid’ arguments? Sound argument: : Valid and has true premises. Valid argument Logically structured (conclusion follows premises). Difference: Soundness requires truth; validity only requires logical structure 1.6 Identify premises in the following arguments by underlining them: 1.6.1 It is false that all mainstream conservatives are persons who support free legal services for the poor. Therefore, no mainstream conservatives are persons who support free legal services for the poor. - - 1.6.2 Premise: It is false that all mainstream conservatives are persons who support free legal services for the poor. Conclusion: Therefore, no mainstream conservatives are persons who support free legal services for the poor. Women of the working class, especially wage workers, should not have more than two children at most. The average working man can support no more and the average woman can take care of no more than two children in descent fashion. - Premises The average working man can support no more. The average woman can take care of no more than two children in decent fashion. 1.6.3 Conclusion: Women of the working class... should not have more than two children. The ruling party in South Africa is losing popularity with the people because of service delivery issues and corruption. - Premise: Because of service delivery issues and corruption. Conclusion: The ruling party in South Africa is losing popularity. QUESTION 2: ARGUMENT EVALUATION: Instructions for Question 2: 1. Evaluate the following arguments. 2. In your evaluation, state whether the argument is inductive or deductive, value or empirical, contains a fallacy or not (stipulate which fallacy if it contains one) and whether it is valid/invalid or sound/unsound or weak/strong induction. 3. Present your responses to all the arguments in the table provided below: Argument 2.1 P1: P2: C: No e-mail messages are eloquent creations. Some love letters are eloquent creations. Some love letters are not e-mail messages. Argument 2.2 Since Moby Dick was written by Shakespeare, and Moby Dick is a science fiction novel, it follows that Shakespeare wrote a science fiction novel. Argument 2.3 The Encyclopaedia Britannica has an article on symbiosis. The Encyclopaedia Americana, like the Britannica is an excellent reference work. Therefore, the Americana probably also has an article on symbiosis. Table below is provided for your answers Inductive or Deductive Value or empirical Fallacy? If ‘Yes,’ which? Valid / invalid or sound / unsound Argument 2.1 Deductive Empirical None Valid (sound if premises are true) Argument 2.2 Deductive Empirical False Valid but unsound (premises are false) Argument 2.3 Inductive Empirical None Strong induction (reasonable analogy) 4 Downloaded by Thomas Mboya () 5 Instructions for Question 3: Please provide argument formal structure of the following arguments using the statement symbols provided in brackets. Your arguments should be rewritten in the following format: Premise 1 Premise 2 Conclusion In other words, the format of the arguments should be along the lines of the following 2 examples: 1. If it rains (P) then the street gets wet (Q). It rains (P). Then the street gets wet (Q) Formal structure of argument above: If P then Q P Q 2. Some philosophers (P) are men of action (M). All soldiers (S) are men of action (M). So, some soldiers (S) are philosophers (P). Formal structure of argument above: Some P are M All S are M  Some S are P QUESTION 3: ARGUMENT STRUCTURES: 3.1 Some racists (R) are not persons suited to be immigration officials (I), given that some humanitarians (H) are not persons suited to be immigration officials (I), and no humanitarians (H) are racists (R). - Premise 1: Some H are not I - Premise 2: No H are R - Conclusion: Some R are not I Formal structure of argument above: Some H are ¬I No H are R ∴ Some R are ¬I 3.2 Downloaded by Thomas Mboya () lOMoARcPSD| lOMoARcPSD| If life is always better than death (B), then people do not commit suicide (S). But people do commit suicide (S). Therefore, life is not always better than death (B). - - - Premise 1: If B, then ¬S Premise 2: S Conclusion: ¬B Formal structure of argument above: B → ¬S S ∴ ¬B 3.3 Wherever icebergs are present (I), threats to shipping exists (T). Icebergs are not present in the South Pacific (I). Hence, there are no threats to shipping in the South Pacific (T). - - - Premise 1: If I, then T Premise 2: ¬I Conclusion: ¬T Formal structure of argument above: I → T ¬I ∴ ¬T QUESTION 4: ARGUMENT MAPS/DIAGRAMS: Instructions for Question 4: Create argument maps/argument diagrams of the arguments in 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3 below. The format of the argument maps/diagrams should be along the lines of the following example: 1 2 3 Be sure that you number the statements as they are labelled in the questions. 4.1 The contamination of underground aquifers represents a pollution problem of catastrophic proportions [A]. Half the nations’ drinking water, which comes from these aquifers is being poisoned by chemical wastes dumped into the soil for generations [B]. [B] ↓ [A] 4.2 (4) The selling of human organs, such as hearts, kidneys, and corneas, should be outlawed [A]. If this practice is allowed to get a foothold, people in desperate financial straits will start selling their own organs to pay their bills [B]. Alternately, those with a criminal bent will take to killing healthy young people and selling their organs on the black market [C]. In the final analysis, the buying and selling of human organs comes just too close to the buying and selling of life itself [D]. (5) [B] [C] [D] ↓ [A] 4.3 ↓ ↓ No Economic Freedom Fighters members are African National Congress members [1]. So, no Economic Freedom Fighters members are big Spenders [2], Since All big Spenders are African National Congress members [3]. [1] + [3] ↓ [2]