phil 347 week 3 checkpoint quiz Test Questions Fully Solved.

According to the text, how do the views of stronger, more developed critical thinkers toward authority differ from those in earlier stages of cognitive development? - correct answer According to the text, the stronger, more developed critical thinkers are skeptical and will not believe an authority figure unless they've done their research. They know that the word "authority" is ambiguous and has two meanings, which can confuse. More advanced critical thinkers view authority as someone who offers expertise. Briefly, in your own words, state how the text defines "expert." - correct answer someone who has thoroughly learned a subject and is also experienced in the subject or field. When presented with a claim unsupported by reasons (for example, "the health risks of vaping have been underestimated"), what three options does a critical thinker have to evaluate such a claim? - correct answer Evaluating the substance Evaluating the source Obtaining an independent verification Is the following statement true or untrue? Explain your answer. "If a claim cannot be confirmed by an independent investigation, then it must be false." - correct answer Just because a claim can't be confirmed independently doesn't automatically make it false; it could still be true but just unverified. Is the following statement true or untrue? Explain your answer. "If we do not believe that a claim is true, then we must believe that the claim is false. - correct answer This statement is untrue. The reason for this is simple, if we think the claim is not true we can still research the claim and find out it is true. what four conditions must an argument meet if we are to accept its worthiness and reasonableness of its conclusion? - correct answer arguable claim or premise, use of evidence and facts, a warrant, and qualifications. In an argument with two or more independent reasons, if one of those reasons turns out to be false, how does a critical thinker apply the test of logical strength to the argument? Should the critical thinker reject such an argument? Explain your answer. - correct answer A critical thinker should not reject an argument with two or more independent reasons, even if one of those reasons is false. Erwin is charged with statutory rape, which is defined as a having sex with a minor, a person under the age of 18. Erwin argues: "You can't arrest me just because she's 17 and I'm 21. Yes, we had sex, but it was consensual, plus she will be 18 in two weeks, and we are planning to get married." Which of the four tests of worthiness does Erwin's argument fail? Explain your answer. - correct answer Erwin's argument fails the test of relevance. Even though the sex may have been consensual and the girl will be 18 in 2 weeks, it does not free him of the charges. The law states that statutory rape is have sex with someone under the age of 18 which is what he did. Go to Individual Exercises at the end of Chapter 7 and evaluate Example 4, which begins "If God intended marriage..." Assume the premises are true. Applying only tests 2, 3, and 4 (logical strength, relevance and non-circularity), what condition of worthiness and reasonableness does this argument not meet? Explain your answer. - correct answer This statement violates the fourth test, non-circularity. In an argument, the conclusion is true if the premises are true. In this case, the premise of marriage being intended for reproduction is not true. Many heterosexual couples chose to or physically cannot have children just a a same sex couple cannot. Question: Janet says: "Daria is not a person of color, so I see no reason why we should listen to her on the issue of minority race relations. Jose is Hispanic; he's the one we should listen to." As a critical thinker, can you describe, in your own words, the flaw in Janet's claim? Once you have completed your description in your own words, state which of the tests of worthiness and reasonableness Janet's argument fails and which fallacy she commits. - correct answer The flaw in Daria's claim is that it is biased and unsupported by evidence. Her claim fails tests one through three as it is untrue, has no logical strength to support the argument and the point of race is irrelevant to the issue of minority race relations. Her argument commits the ad hominem fallacy as the argument is rejected solely because of the characterists of the speaker.