Critical reasoning/Course guide/Assignment 2

Assignment

This assignment consists of two sections: section A and section B. Section A deals with the analysis of arguments and section B deals with the evaluation of arguments. There are eight (8) questions. The value of each question is 2%, therefore the total mark of assignment 2 is 16%. Answer all questions.

Activity

SECTION A: The analysis of arguments

Analyse the following arguments to determine the conclusion(s) and premises:

1. Euthanasia cannot be justified. The judgement that a patient is terminally ill isn't always the last word, you know. The diagnosis may be mistaken, a new cure may come along, and cancer patients have been known to go into spontaneous remission. But death is the last word. Once you have killed a patient, he or she is beyond all hope. How would you feel if a wonder drug turned up the next day, or if the doctors discovered their diagnosis was wrong? (Adapted from J. Olen & V. Barry, Applying ethics, 7th edition, Wadsworth, New York, 1999, p. 235)
2. “Most parents want their children to have successful careers. Since education is essential to success, it is the duty of parents to give children the best possible education. Because it is also in the country’s economic interest to have a highly educated population, the Government should help parents to provide for their children’s education. Therefore all parents should receive financial help towards the cost of their children’s education, so the low paid should receive tax credits and those who are better off should receive tax relief.”
   (A. Fisher, Critical thinking: an introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001, p. 24)
3. The view in favour of the law allowing people to adopt a specific sexual lifestyle has led to a number of serious consequences. I’m not just talking about such tragedies as teen mothers, but things like the gay rights movement. First we have homosexuals demanding the right to teach in elementary schools, then we have homosexual couples demanding the right to adopt children, then we have them demanding that homosexual ‘spouses’ be included in family medical plans and the like. I have no idea where all this is ultimately heading, but it’s certainly not in the right direction. We can’t let children grow up believing that homosexuality is just another life-style, and we can’t have society treating homosexual relationships like real marriages. No society can survive treating homosexual relationships as a form of sexual libertarianism.
   (Adapted from J. Olen & V. Barry, Applying ethics, 7th edition, Wadsworth, New York, 1999, p. 85)
4. Ecology teaches us that human life is crucially intertwined with the ecosystem as a whole, yet ecologists frequently emphasise how little we actually know about the complicated multileveled interaction of life forms. If we destroy one part of the ecosystem, we may unwittingly trigger a chain of events that ultimately culminates in substantial detriment to human well-being. Hence, a serious regard for human welfare seems to necessitate our making every effort to preserve our natural environment.
   
   

---

Feedback:

Analysis of arguments

1. Let us analyse the argument in question 1 to determine the conclusion(s) and premises. First, we will put the statements in brackets and number them in the order in which they appear. Note that a statement asserts or makes a claim about an issue, an idea, or some state of affairs in the world. This means that we cannot just randomly bracket sentences. Take care that the statements you put in brackets make sense. Bracketing and numbering statements helps us to identify conclusions and premises in arguments.
   
   [Euthanasia cannot be justified]¹. [The judgment that a patient is terminally ill isn’t always the last word]², you know. [The diagnosis may be mistaken]³, [a new cure may come along]⁴, and [cancer patients have been known to go into spontaneous remission]⁵. But [death is the last word]⁶. [Once you have killed a patient, he or she is beyond all hope]⁷. How would you feel if a wonder drug turned up the next day, or if the doctors discovered their diagnosis was wrong?
   
   Argument analysis
   Chain argument. (There are two conclusions in the argument)
   Main conclusion — 1
   Premises for main conclusion — 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
   Sub-conclusion — 6
   Premise for sub-conclusion — 7
   
   Note: The last sentence of the argument is not a statement but a question and could be considered as an aside remark.
   
   
2. Analysing the argument in question 2:
   
   [Most parents want their children to have successful careers]¹. Since [education is essential to success]², [it is the duty of parents to give children the best possible education]³. Because [it is also in the country’s economic interest to have a highly educated population]⁴, [the Government should help parents to provide for their children’s education]⁵. Therefore [all parents should receive financial help towards the cost of their children’s education]⁶, so [the low paid should receive tax credits and those who are better off should receive tax relief] ⁷
   
   Argument analysis
   Chain argument. (There are four conclusions in the argument)
   Main conclusion — 7
   Premise for main conclusion — 6
   Sub-conclusion — 6
   Premise for sub-conclusion — 5
   Sub-conclusion — 5
   Premises for sub-conclusion — 3, 4
   Sub-conclusion — 3
   Premises for sub-conclusion — 1, 2
   
   
3. Analysing the argument in question 3:
   
   [Your views have led to a number of crazy consequences]¹. [I’m not just talking about such tragedies as teen mothers]², but [I’m talking about things like the gay rights movement]³. First [we have homosexuals demanding the right to teach in elementary schools]⁴, then [we have homosexual couples demanding the right to adopt children]⁵, then [we have them demanding that homosexual ‘spouses’ be included in family medical plans and the like]⁶. [I have no idea where all this is ultimately heading]⁷, but [it’s certainly not in the right direction]⁸. [We can’t let children grow up believing that homosexuality is just another life-style]⁹, and [we can’t have society treating homosexual relationships like real marriages]¹⁰. [No society can survive treating homosexual relationships as a form of sexual libertarianism]¹¹.
   
   Argument analysis
   Simple argument. (There is only one conclusion in the argument)
   Conclusion — 11
   Premises for the conclusion — 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
   
   
4. Analysing the argument in question 4:
   
   [Ecology teaches us that human life is crucially intertwined with the ecosystem as a whole]¹, yet [ecologists frequently emphasise how little we actually know about the complicated multileveled interaction of life forms]². [If we destroy one part of the ecosystem, we may unwittingly trigger a chain of events that ultimately culminates in substantial detriment to human well-being]³. Hence, [a serious regard for human welfare seems to necessitate our making every effort to preserve our natural environment]⁴.
   
   Argument analysis
   Chain argument. (There are two conclusions in the argument)
   Main conclusion: 4
   Premise for main conclusion: 3
   Subconclusion: 3
   Premises for subconclusion: 1, 2

---

SECTION B: The evaluation of arguments

Evaluate the arguments in section A above to determine the following aspects:

1. What kind of argument are we dealing with?
2. What is the arguer claiming?
3. What reasons does the arguer offer to support his claim?
4. Are the reasons in support of the conclusion acceptable?
5. Is it a good argument? Give reasons for your answer.

---

Feedback:

Evaluating arguments

1. In order to determine what kind of argument we are dealing with, read the argument on euthanasia carefully. Also go back to Topic 4 (Evaluating arguments) and reread the sections dealing with different types of arguments.
   
   [Euthanasia cannot be justified]¹. [The judgment that a patient is terminally ill isn’t always the last word]², you know. [The diagnosis may be mistaken]³, [a new cure may come along]⁴, and [cancer patients have been known to go into spontaneous remission]⁵. But [death is the last word]⁶. [Once you have killed a patient, he or she is beyond all hope]⁷. How would you feel if a wonder drug turned up the next day, or if the doctors discovered their diagnosis was wrong?
   
   
   1. The argument on euthanasia is an inductive value argument.
   2. The arguer is claiming that euthanasia cannot be justified. Note that there is also a sub-conclusion, which claims that death is the last word.
   3. The arguer gives the following reasons to support the main conclusion:
      1. The judgement that a patient is terminally ill isn't always the last word.
      2. The diagnosis may be mistaken.
      3. A new cure may come along.
      4. Cancer patients have been known to go into spontaneous remission.
         
         The following reason is given in support of the sub-conclusion:
      5. Once you have killed a patient, he or she is beyond all hope.
         
         Note that the sentence at the end of the passage, "How would you feel if a wonder drug turned up the next day, or if the doctors discovered their diagnosis was wrong?", is not a statement, but a question. It does not give any support to the conclusions and the arguer could as well have left it out.
         
         
   4. A good way to establish whether the premises of the argument are acceptable is to find counterexamples and counterarguments to the arguer's statements.
      
      Let us examine whether the premises the arguer offers in support of his main conclusion are acceptable. The main conclusion is: "Euthanasia cannot be justified".
      1. The statement, "The judgement that a patient is terminally ill isn't always the last word", does not really say anything new — it only restates the second premise, "The diagnosis may be mistaken".
      2. The plausibility of the statement, "The diagnosis may be mistaken", is questionable. From experience and previous knowledge we know that medical specialists seldom make mistakes when diagnosing terminal cancer. Moreover, a second opinion is usually asked before a final diagnosis is reached. This premise does not support the conclusion adequately.
      3. The statement, "A new cure may come along", is not acceptable. The following counterexample can be used to refute the arguer's claim: It could take years before a new cure for terminal cancer is found, if at all. The premise does not support the conclusion sufficiently.
      4. The statement, "Cancer patients have been known to go into spontaneous remission", is equally doubtful. Very few cancer patients have ever gone into spontaneous remission. The premise does not support the conclusion satisfactorily.
         
         Is the premise the arguer gives in support of the sub-conclusion of the argument acceptable? The sub-conclusion is: "Death is the last word."
         
         
      5. The statement, "Once you have killed a patient, he or she is beyond all hope", is just a repetition of what wastated in the sub-conclusion. The premise does not support the sub-conclusion.
         
         
   5. We think that this is a bad argument for the following reasons:
      1. The argument is not sound because the arguer does not offer good reasons in support of what he or she is claiming.
      2. None of the premises adequately supports the conclusions of the argument. This means that the truth of the claim that euthanasia cannot be justified is disputable.
      3. The arguer does not give a definition of the term "euthanasia". What type of euthanasia is the arguer talking about? Is it active voluntary euthanasia, active involuntary euthanasia, passive voluntary euthanasia, or passive involuntary euthanasia? Active voluntary euthanasia occurs when a competent adult patient requests or gives explicit consent to certain medical treatment or non-treatment. In some cases of active voluntary euthanasia the patient requests that she be given a lethal injection. Active involuntary euthanasia occurs where a patient is competent to make decisions, does not consent or request euthanasia, but a third person, out of pity or for whatever reason, decides to perform euthanasia on the patient by, for instance, administering a fatal drug overdose. Passive voluntary euthanasia occurs when a patient chooses to die by refusing treatment, or instructs others to act on her behalf. For instance, a terminally ill patient can appoint her spouse, family or a lawyer as proxy decision-maker to cease life-sustaining treatment in the event that she is incapable of doing so. Passive involuntary euthanasia refers to cases of euthanasia where the decision is not made by the person whose life is at issue, but by others. These cases include situations where patients are incompetent to give informed consent to life-or-death decisions and others, usually the family, make important decisions for them. A value judgment, such as "Euthanasia is wrong", is too generalised because, in deciding whether euthanasia is morally (or legally) justified, we have to know which type of euthanasia we are dealing with.
         
         
2. In evaluating the argument on education and tax relief, we will help you to establish what kind of argument it is, what the arguer is claiming and what reasons the arguer offer in support of his claims. You should complete the evaluation of this argument on your own by applying the experience you have gained from the previous example to answer the following questions:
   
   Are the reasons in support of the conclusions acceptable?
   
   Is it a good argument? Give reasons for your answer.
   
   [Most parents want their children to have successful careers]¹. Since [education is essential to success]², [it is the duty of parents to give children the best possible education]³. Because [it is also in the country’s economic interest to have a highly educated population]⁴, [the Government should help parents to provide for their children’s education]⁵. Therefore [all parents should receive financial help towards the cost of their children’s education]⁶, so [the low paid should receive tax credits and those who are better off should receive tax relief]⁷
   
   
   1. The argument on education and tax relief is an inductive empirical argument. If you have forgotten the difference between a value and an empirical argument, please turn back to Topic 4.
   2. In this chain argument the arguer makes four claims, one main claim (the main conclusion) and three sub-claims (sub-conclusions).
      
      The main conclusion (the point the arguer is trying to convince us of) is:
      The low paid should receive tax credits and those who are better off should receive tax relief. (Statement number 7)
      
      The first sub-conclusion is:
      All parents should receive financial help towards the cost of their children’s education. (Statement number 6)
      
      The second sub-conclusion is:
      The Government should help parents to provide for their children’s education. (Statement number 5)
      
      The third sub-conclusion is:
      It is the duty of parents to give children the best possible education. (Statement number 3)
      
      
   3. What reasons does the arguer give to support his claims?
      
      The arguer gives the following reason in support of the main conclusion:
      
      1. All parents should receive financial help towards the cost of their children’s education. (Statement number 6)
         
         The following reason is offered in support of the first sub-conclusion:
         
      2. The Government should help parents to provide for their children’s education. (Statement number 5)
         
         The following reasons are given in support of the second sub-conclusion:
         
      3. It is the duty of parents to give children the best possible education. (Statement number 3)
         
      4. It is in the country’s economic interest to have a highly educated population. (Statement number 4).
         
         The arguer gives the following reasons for the third sub-conclusion:
         
      5. Most parents want their children to have successful careers. (Statement number 1)
         
      6. Education is essential to success. (Statement number 2)
         
         
3. In evaluating the argument on sexual liberty, let us first establish what kind of argument we are dealing with by reading the argument carefully.
   
   [Your views have led to a number of crazy consequences]¹. [I’m not just talking about such tragedies as teen mothers]², but [I’m talking about things like the gay rights movement]³. First [we have homosexuals demanding the right to teach in elementary schools]⁴, then [we have homosexual couples demanding the right to adopt children]⁵, then [we have them demanding that homosexual ‘spouses’ be included in family medical plans and the like]⁶. [I have no idea where all this is ultimately heading]⁷, but [it’s certainly not in the right direction]⁸. [We can’t let children grow up believing that homosexuality is just another life-style]⁹, and [we can’t have society treating homosexual relationships like real marriages]¹⁰. [No society can survive treating homosexual relationships as a form of sexual libertarianism]¹¹.
   
   
   1. This is an inductive value argument.
      
      
   2. What is the arguer claiming?
      The arguer is claiming that no society can survive homosexuality as a form of sexual libertarianism, because we can’t let children grow up believing that homosexuality is just another life-style, and we can’t have society treating homosexual relationships like real marriages.
      
      
   3. The reasons the arguer offers in support of the conclusion are the following:
      1. Views on sexual liberty, including homosexuality, have led to a number of crazy consequences.
         
      2. When considering sexual liberty, the arguer does not only have in mind such tragedies as teen mothers.
         
      3. He also has in mind the gay rights movement.
         
      4. Homosexuals have demanded the right to teach in elementary schools.
         
      5. Homosexual couples have demanded the right to adopt children.
         
      6. It was demanded that homosexual "spouses" be included in family medical plans and the like.
         
      7. It is uncertain where all this is ultimately heading.
         
      8. The arguer is convinced that it is not heading in the right direction.
         
      9. Children cannot grow up believing that homosexuality is just another life-style.
         
      10. We can’t have society treating homosexual relationships like real marriages.
          
          
   4. Are the reasons in support of the conclusion acceptable?
      We think that the reasons offered in support of the conclusion are not acceptable. They do not persuade us to believe that homosexuality will turn society upside down. The arguer himself makes a value judgement, which is based on the preconceived idea that only heterosexual relationships are morally and legally acceptable.
      
      1. Is it a good argument? Give reasons for your answer.
         We think that this is a bad argument for the following reasons:
         
      2. The argument is fallacious because the reasons given are disputable and based on preconceived ideas on what kind of sexuality should count as moral and legal. What is moral about heterosexual relationships and what is immoral about homosexual relationships?
         
      3. The argument is guilty of presenting a slippery slope fallacy (see chapter two). The arguer reasons in a chain with conditionals, and our attention is distracted by the thought of how terrible the situation would be if we allow homosexual relationships the same status, morally and legally, as heterosexual marriages. The slippery slope argument goes as follows: If we allow homosexuals the right to teach in elementary schools, and if we allow homosexual couples the right to adopt children, and if we allow homosexual spouses to be included in family medical plans, then something horrible will happen — we will end up raising an entire generation of homosexual children. This is unrealistic and an absurd claim.
         
         
4. In evaluating the argument on ecology and human welfare, we will help you to establish what kind of argument it is, what the arguer is claiming and what reasons the arguer offer in support of his claims. You should complete the evaluation of this argument on your own by applying the experience you have gained from the previous examples to answer the following questions:
   Are the reasons in support of the conclusions acceptable?
   Is it a good argument? Give reasons for your answer.
   
   [Ecology teaches us that human life is crucially intertwined with the ecosystem as a whole]¹, yet [ecologists frequently emphasise how little we actually know about the complicated multileveled interaction of life forms]². [If we destroy one part of the ecosystem, we may unwittingly trigger a chain of events that ultimately culminates in substantial detriment to human well-being]³. Hence, [a serious regard for human welfare seems to necessitate our making every effort to preserve our natural environment]⁴.
   
   
   1. What kind of argument are we dealing with?
      This is an inductive value argument.
      
      
   2. What is the arguer claiming?
      In this chain argument the arguer makes two claims, one main claim (the main conclusion) and one sub-claim (sub-conclusion).
      The main conclusion (the point the arguer is trying to convince us of) is:
      A serious regard for human welfare seems to necessitate our making every effort to preserve our natural environment (Statement number 4)
      
      The sub-conclusion is:
      If we destroy one part of the ecosystem, we may unwittingly trigger a chain of events that ultimately culminates in substantial detriment to human well-being (Statement number 3)
      
      
   3. What reason(s) does the arguer offer to support his or her claims?
      The reason the arguer offers in support of the main conclusion is the following:
      
      1. If we destroy one part of the ecosystem, we may unwittingly trigger a chain of events that ultimately culminates in substantial detriment to human well-being.
         
         The reasons the arguer offers in support of the sub-conclusion is the following:
         
      2. Ecology teaches us that human life is crucially intertwined with the ecosystem as a whole.
         
      3. Ecologists frequently emphasise how little we actually know about the complicated multileveled interaction of life forms.