------------------------------------

Exercise One -- KEY:

The argument forms and their evaluations are given as follows:

1.  This type of argument goes by the name ad hominem, or "to the man", a well-known fallacy.  (See Chapter Seven , Section V, of the UI Critical Thinking Handbook for more on ad hominem arguments.)   In effect, Beowulf is arguing that Unferth should be ignored because he is a loathesome and weak person.  Note that there is nothing in this rebuke that relates to the story Unferth told or to the source of that story.  Ad hominem arguments are not always bad, but they are generally suspicious; in this case, it is wise to be suspicious of the argument, even though Unferth probably gets what he deserves here.

2.  This is a CPA with the form: If A, then B; B; therefore, A.  (Keeping in mind that being a blue state means that you will have voted for Kerry.)  This is invalid, since the reasons could be true and the conclusion still false.  After all, Kerry could win every other state and lose Idaho and still be elected.  This is a fallacy with the name "Affirming the Consequent."

3.  The content of this argument will be distracting, inclining people strongly in one evaluative direction or the other; however, if we focus simply on the form, things get a bit simpler.  This is an argument by analogy, and while the structure of the acorn story is parallel to the structure of the story about persons, there isn't much to back up the suggestion that they are analogous. A critic might respond that the relation between fetus and person is much closer than that between an acorn and an oak tree, rendering the analogy too weak to support the conclusion.  As it is presented, there are no resources to respond to this criticism.  Given how thin the analogy is as presented, it does not provide compelling reason for its conclusion.

4.  Strictly speaking, this is an invalid CPA.  It may be Victor's responsibility as the creature's creator to improve his lot, but it is not necessary that he improve it in the way that would be most beneficial for the creature.  After all, there might be other ways to improve the lot of the creature that aren't maximally good and are easier to pull off.  However, given the threats made and the surrounding circumstances, it may be true that this is what must happen.  However, to make this valid, there will have to be several implicit premises bridging holes in the argument as it is reconstructed in the exercise.

5.  This is an abductive PPA.  All things considered, it is a pretty good one.

6. This is a famously invalid CPA of the form: If A, then B; not A; therefore, not B.  This is a fallacy with the name, "Denying the Antecedent", the contrapositive of "Affirming the Consequent."  I just don't see how the conclusion can possibly be true, so something has to be wrong here. 

7.  This is an inductive PPA, and it is not a good one.  The sample size is very small, and also very select, consisting only of philosophy students.  There is no compelling evidence to be taken from this for the conclusion that all of the students (or even most) at UBC are smart. 

8.  This is a valid CPA of the form:  All Ps are Qs.  X is a P.  Therefore, X is a Q.  

9.  This is a confirmation argument, and it would appear to be pretty strong, although there might be other possibilities, e.g., rats, other birds, etc.  But given the observation, it seems like the quail are responsible for the boring oatmeal.

10.  This is a CPA that relies on the implicit premise that two are worse than one.  Keep in mind that the creature has promised to inflict horrible suffering if his demand is rejected, so Frankenstein has weighed this promise against the possible destruction that could be dealt out by two creatures and decided that two are worse than one.  Relative to this, the argument is valid, but whether it is strong is another question entirely.