GROUP D

UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, JAMAICA

COLLEGE/ FACULTY: College of Business and Management

SCHOOL/ DEPARTMENT: School of Business Administration

Presentation Questions

Module Name: Introduction to Logic

Module Code: ECO1015

GROUP D – 60 MARKS

30 marks
1) For a variety of reasons, 1[private colleges are in trouble.] First, 2[private colleges have
repeatedly increased tuition well beyond the rate of inflation.] And 3[any business that
increases prices in such a fashion is likely to run into trouble.] Second, 4[many people are
beginning to question the value of higher education] since 5[a college degree no longer
guarantees an attractive salary.] Third, rightly or wrongly, 6[the American public believes
that colleges have not practiced good financial management,] and hence 7[the public thinks
that tuition dollars often subsidize inefficiency.]

Answer questions ‘a’ to ‘e’ below from the passage immediately above.

a) Identify two (2) excess verbiages from the passage above. (2 marks)

b) How do these excess verbiages affect the argument? (2 marks)

c) Write a well-crafted version of this argument. (4 marks)

d) Construct an argument diagram of the argument above. (5 marks)

e) Look at this argument and make a case either for validity or invalidity. Draw on methods or
principles from at least one (1) unit from this module. (2 marks)

f) Use both a truth table and a counterexample to test the validity of the form: If D then M. Not D.
So, M. (7 marks)

g) Use at least two (2) examples to help in making a distinction between formal and informal
fallacies. (3 marks)

h) Take the word ‘pencil’ and construct two (2) definitions of it. The first should be too wide while
the other should be too narrow. (2 marks)

i) With the aid of at least two (2) examples, what is the distinction between deductive and inductive
arguments? (3 marks)

1
 GROUP D

30 marks

2) Use material from the relevant units to answer the following questions.

a) How can the distinction between genus and specie be used to bring clarity to arguments?
(2 marks)

b) Use letters or symbols to show the difference between a subset and proper subset.
(2 marks)

c) Provide an example of an argument that commits the fallacy of Complex Questions.

(1 mark)

d) Explain why your example commits the fallacy of Complex Question. (2 marks)

e) In what way are equivocations expected to affect an argument? (1 marks)

f) Provide an example of an argument that commits the fallacy of equivocation. (1 marks)

g) Construct an example of an argument that has all false statements yet it is tested valid.
(3 marks

h) Provide a figurative or ambiguous definition for the word ‘leaf’. Identify the definiens
and the definiendum in your definition of leaf. (3 marks)

i) Use as many examples as possible to help you distinguish between deductive and
inductive arguments. (2 marks)

j) Can argument diagrams be used to test the validity of arguments? Explain your answer.
(1 mark)

Ans. No. This is because argument diagrams are only used in Identifying the premises
and the conclusion, Eliminating excess verbiage, Putting the steps of the argument in
the proper order and Identifying the structure of the argument.

k) What are some of the difficulties faced when attempting to use the Five Famous Forms of
reasoning to test the validity of arguments? (2 marks)
Ans: Mistakes that maybe arise while using the Five Famous Forms is that of affirming
the consequent in Modus Pones, and also denying the antecedent in using Modus
Tollens, which both will make the argument invalid.

l) Symbolize the form ‘Hypothetical Syllogism’. (3 marks)

Symbolic Form:
P →Q
Q →R
P →R

m) Place the symbolized argument form in ‘l’ above on a truth table. (6 marks)

2
 GROUP D

P Q R P →Q Q →R P →R
T T T T T T

T T F T F F
T F T F T T
T F F F T F
F T T T T T
F T F T F T
F F T T T T
F F F T T T

n) How do you interpret the validity of this argument from the truth table? (1 mark)

Ans: On the truth table, to determine validity, the premises has to be true to give a likely
true conclusion;, there is no instance in which both the premise P →Q and Q→R were true
and gave and gave a false conclusion P →R. Therefore, making it an valid argument.