PLS2601/202/1/2019

Tutorial Letter 202/1/2019

Critical Reasoning

PLS2601

Semester 1

Department of Philosophy, Practical and

Systematic Theology

Discipline of Philosophy

This tutorial letter contains important feedback information on your second

assignment as well as information about your examination.

BARCODE
 CONTENTS

Page

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3
2 FEEDBACK ON ASSIGNMENT 2 (UNIQUE NUMBER: 875459) ................................................. 3
3 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................ 19

2
 PLS2601/202/1/2019

1 INTRODUCTION

Dear student of PLS2601 Critical Reasoning,

This follow up tutorial letter contains the answers to Assignment 2, which was due on 26 April
2019. For this assignment, you could have consulted both the Study Guide and the textbook to
find the answers.

2 FEEDBACK ON ASSIGNMENT 2 (UNIQUE NUMBER: 875459)

1 Which option below best completes the following statement:

An argument in the context of critical reasoning is…

1 … a quarrel or verbal fight between two interlocutors, where one speaker is shouting.

2 … when a speaker appeals to force to convince another of her point of view.

3 … what follows if the antecedent condition is assumed true.

4 … [a] premise[s] and conclusion[s] that aim to convince another of a certain point of
view.

Answer: 4

Motivation: An argument in the context of critical thinking is not a quarrel or fight between
speakers (Van den Berg 2010: 37). Force is not used to convince another of one’s argument.
Consequently, we can rule out options one and two as the correct answers. If we compare
options three and four, we can establish that option four is the correct answer – an argument is
indeed an attempt to convince another person of a point of view. An argument also contains at
least one premise and at least one conclusion.

3
2 Fill in the missing word/term:

A(n) _________________ contains flaws in reasoning because its form or structure is

invalid. It appears to be valid because of a counterfeit resemblance to the form of a valid
argument.

1 emotion fallacy

2 distraction fallacy

3 critical fallacy

4 structural fallacy

Answer: 4

Motivation: There are three types of fallacies discussed in your textbook. these are distraction
fallacies, emotion fallacies and structural fallacies. If we look at the definition of structural
fallacies, we can see that ‘some arguments are unacceptable because of their form or structure’
(Van den Berg 2010: 28). The right option is therefore option four.

3 Identify the conclusion in the following argument:

‘Yoga is good for you. Studies have shown that yoga reduces the chances of heart
disease. Furthermore, it relieves stress. Yoga has also been shown to decrease
appetite, which assists with weight loss and it also positively affects one’s mood.’

4
 PLS2601/202/1/2019

1 Yoga relieves stress.

2 Yoga decreases appetite and assists with weight loss.

3 Yoga is good for you.

4 Studies have shown that yoga reduces the chances of heart disease.

Answer: 3

Motivation: According to your textbook a ‘conclusion is a statement in an argument that the

premises are intended to support’ (Van den Berg 2010: 44). A good question to ask yourself at
this juncture is ‘what is this argument trying to convince me of?’ If I read this argument, it seems
like the overarching point is that yoga is a positive thing to do – most of the sentences seem to
support such a statement. We can then see that the first sentence ‘yogo is good for you’ is
supported by the other sentences (premises). We can therefore conclude that option three is
the correct answer.

4 Identify the fallacy in the following argument:

‘We cannot allow children to be exposed to excessive screen time. If they are exposed to
too much screen time at a young age, then they will become lazy adults. If they are lazy
adults, then the collapse of modern society is certain.’

1 Argumentum ad baculum

2 Slippery slope argument

3 Equivocation

4 Argumentum ad hominem

5
Answer: 2

Motivation: A slippery slope argument ‘leads one from seemingly unimportant and obviously
true first premises to calamitous and exaggerated consequences in the conclusion’ (Van den
Berg 2014: 30). This argument very quickly ends to an exaggerated conclusion – how does
allowing children screen time lead to the collapse of modern society? This argument
exaggerates the possible consequences of one action, and so a slippery slope fallacy is
committed. Option two is therefore the correct option.

5 Identify the fallacy in the following argument.

‘Carrying a gun is as American as apple pie and baseball. In order to prevent shootings
in school, we must equip teachers with guns to protect themselves. Restricting guns
would be un-American, and we cannot allow that to happen!’

1 False appeal to authority

2 Slippery slope

3 Appeal to the masses

4 Appeal to force

Answer: 3

Motivation: In this argument, we see an argumentum ad populum or appeal to the masses. This
fallacy is ‘characterised by an attempt to persuade an audience based on popular feelings,
mass sentiment or enthusiasm or patriotism’ (Van den Berg 2010: 26). In this argument, no
good reasons are being given to argue against gun control, but there is an appeal to sentiment
and patriotism. The interlocutor is appealing to some notion of ‘American-ness’ to make their
argument, rather than providing evidence to persuade. Option three is therefore the correct
option.
6
 PLS2601/202/1/2019

Examine the following argument and answer questions 6, 7 and 8 that follow.

‘If the repo rate is increased by the South African Reserve Bank (SARB), then the
economy will slow down and inflation will increase. At a news conference yesterday, the
SARB increased the repo rate. Therefore, we are likely to see the economy slowing down
and inflation increasing.’

6 What type of argument is this an example of?

1 Deductive empirical argument

2 Inductive value argument

3 Deductive value argument

4 Inductive empirical argument

Answer: 1

Motivation: Let us first establish whether this is an empirical or a value argument. For an
argument to be empirical, it entails that its premises rely on facts that we are able to verify. For
an argument to be a value argument there needs to be a moral claim about what one ought or
ought not to do (Van den Berg 2010: 81). As the above argument is about the repo rate, it is an
empirical argument – we can easily verify the repo rate by looking at news reports or official
documents. The next thing to establish is whether this is an inductive or a deductive argument.
In deduction, the premises give sufficient support for the conclusion, whereas in induction, the
conclusion is subject to some probability (Van den Berg 2010: 81). If we examine this argument,
we can see that it follows a particular ‘pattern’. This pattern is:

7
 Premise 1: If P then Q
Premise 2: P
Conclusion: Therefore Q

This type of argument is a deductive argument called a modus ponens argument (Van den Berg
2010: 31). A modus ponens argument is always deductive. Therefore, option one, ‘emprical
deductive argument’, is the correct answer.

7 Which of the following phrases best describes the argument?

1 Modus ponens argument

2 Modus tollens argument

3 Denying the antecedent

4 Confirming the consequent

Answer: 1

Motivation: As explained in the motivation for question 6, this is a modus ponens argument.
Therefore, option one is correct.

8 Which structure best represents this argument?

1 Premise1: If P then Q

Premise 2: not P

Conclusion: not Q

8
 PLS2601/202/1/2019

2 Premise1: If P then Q

Premise 2: Q

Conclusion: P

3 Premise1: If P then Q

Premise 2: P

Conclusion: Q

4 Premise1: If P then Q

Premise 2: not Q

Conclusion: not P

Answer: 3

Motivation: As we saw in the motivation for question 6, the structure of a modus ponens
argument is:

Premise 1: If P then Q
Premise 2: P
Conclusion: Therefore Q

Therefore, option three is correct.

9 Which of the following options is not a type of inductive reasoning?

1 Statistical extrapolations

2 Arguments from analogy

9
 3 Modus ponens arguments

4 Arguments using cause-and-effect reasoning

Answer: 3

Motivation: In your textbook, there are three kinds of inductive arguments discussed (although
there are surely many more). These are statistical extrapolations, arguments from analogy, and
arguments using cause-and-effect reasoning (Van den Berg 2010: 94-96). Judging from this list,
modus ponens is not a inductive type or argument – in fact, it is a deductive argument. Option
three is therefore the right option.

10 Fill in the missing word/term:

A _________________ is an argument an arguer constructs in answer to another

argument.

1 contraindication

2 counterexample

3 conclusion

4 counterargument

Answer: 4

10
 PLS2601/202/1/2019

Motivation: Counterexamples and counterarguments play an important role in argumentation

(Van den Berg 2010: 77). Counterexamples and counterarguments are offered in response to
another argument, however, the key difference lies in the fact that an example is an instance
which refutes the argument, where an argument is an entire argument offered in response. So,
for example, if I say ‘men are bad drivers’ and you respond giving me an example of a fantastic
male driver (‘Lewis Hamilton is the F1 champion!’) then you have given me a counterexample.
In this case, the missing word is ‘counterargument’, and you will find this definition on page 77
of your textbook. Option four is therefore correct.

11 Identify the word that completes the sentence.

‘A(n) __________ argument is one that takes us beyond the limits of existing evidence
to conclusions about the unknown. There is some degree of support for the conclusion,
but the conclusion is not contained in the premises.’

1 inductive

2 value

3 empirical

4 deductive

Answer: 1

Motivation: This paragraph provides us with the definition of an inductive argument. An inductive
argument’s conclusion follows with probability rather than with certainty (Van den Berg 2010:
81). Option one is therefore correct

11
12 What word completes the sentence?

‘A(n) __________ argument is one where the premises give sufficient support for the
conclusion to follow and arrives at a specific conclusion based on generalisations.’

1 deductive

2 inductive

3 empirical

4 value

Answer: 1

Motivation: A deductive argument is one where the premises give sufficient support for the
conclusion to follow (Van den Berg 2010: 81). As such, option one is the correct answer.

Examine the following argument and answer questions 13 and 14.

Person A: ‘Studies have shown that the use of medicinal marijuana can have positive
effects for people struggling from persistent inflammation, anxiety and depression. In the
correct dosages, there are no harmful side effects. It seems like legalising the use of
medical marijuana could be a very positive thing.’

Person B: ‘That’s a terrible idea! Do you want an entire society that is just high all the
time under the guise of “medicine”? If we legalise marijuana, crime will surely increase.’

12
 PLS2601/202/1/2019

13 What fallacy is committed in Person B’s response?

1 Begging the question.

2 Straw man argument.

3 Appeal to authority.

4 Affirming the consequent.

Answer: 2

Motivation: In some cases, an opponent will respond to an arguer’s claim by interpreting it in a

way that makes it easy for her to knock down the argument conclusion (Van den Berg 2014:
32). In this question, Person B is commiting a straw man fallacy – instead of engaging in depth
with the arguments presented by Person A, she simply discounts medical marijuana as
something that makes people high. There is also the start of a slippery slope argument in her
response, as her conclusion is quite exaggerated. However, the main fallacy committed here is
the straw man argument, and so option two is correct.

14 Based on your answer in question 13, answer the following question:

What is the definition of the fallacy committed in this argument?

1 When a generalisation is drawn on the basis of ill-considered or insufficient

evidence.

2 Citing an authoritative or famous person who is not an expert in the field under
discussion.

13
 3 Making one’s own position appear strong by ridiculing the opposition’s argument.

4 When the consequent in a conditional statement is affirmed and the antecedent is

taken to be true on these grounds.

Answer: 3

Motivation: The term straw man refers to a scarecrow which is supposed to scare away other
birds – but it is actually just an imitation of a person. Similary, the straw man fallacy is when you
make your opponent’s argument seem weak by making it sound outrageous (Van den Berg
2010: 17). In this case, option three most accurately presents the definition of the straw man
argument.

15 Match the definition types in Column A to their definitions in Column B.

Column A Column B
(a) Persuasive (i) A definition which selects properties that are shared
definition by and confined to all the entities covered by the term.
(ii) A definition which makes use of examples of
(b) Stipulative
particular phenomena, thus marking down what it
definition
comprises of.
(iii) A definition which suggests how a given term
(c) Logical definition
should be used, oftentimes ‘coining’ a new term.
(iv) A definition which attempts to influence the reader
(d) Denotative
by providing a new meaning for a term already widely
definition
used.

1 (a): (i); (b): (ii); (c): (iv); (d): (iii)

2 (a): (iv); (b): (iii); (c): (ii); (d): (i)

14
 PLS2601/202/1/2019

3 (a): (iv); (b): (iii); (c): (i); (d): (ii)

4 (a): (iii); (b): (iv); (c): (i); (d): (ii)

Answer: 3

Motivation: The role of definitions in argumentation cannot be overstated. Defining key concepts
reduces vagueness, avoids ambiguities and clarifies information (Van den Berg 2010: 72).
There are four types of definitions, discussed in Chapter 5 in the textbook. By reading through
this chapter, you will see that option three correctly matches all the correct definitions with their
concomitant concepts.

Read the following argument, and answer questions 16 to 18 that follow.

‘Protest action amounts to vandalism of public property, and vandalism of public

property is an offense to the larger community. It follows that protest action should be
banned.’

16 There is a hidden premise in the above argument. What is the hidden premise?

1 Protest action is undemocratic.

2 Protest action should not be done in public.

3 Activities that offend the community should be banned.

4 Destruction of public property is vandalism.

Answer: 3
15
Motivation: Sometimes, arguments are incomplete (Van den Berg 2010: 43). In this case, the
argument has a conclusion, that protest action should be banned, with two premises that state
that protest action is vandalism, and that vandalism is an offense. However, there seems to be
a missing premise that explains why those things that offend the larger community should be
banned. If we add option three into the argument, the argument is a lot stronger, as the idea
that offensive actions should be banned is now stated explicitly.

17 What is the conclusion of the above argument?

1 Protest action amounts to vandalism.

2 Vandalism is an offense to the community.

3 There is a hidden conclusion.

4 Protest action should be banned.

Answer: 4

Motivation: As stated in the motivation of question 16, the conclusion is that ‘protest action
should be banned’. Option four is therefore correct.

18 Which of the following most accurately describes the argument?

1 Empirical inductive argument with a hidden premise.

2 Value inductive argument with a hidden premise.

3 Value inductive argument without a hidden premise.

4 Value inductive argument with a hidden conclusion.

16
 PLS2601/202/1/2019

Answer: 2

Motivation: Let us first establish whether this is an empirical or a value argument. For an
argument to be empirical, it entails that its premises rely on facts that we are able to verify. For
an argument to be a value argument there needs to be a moral claim about what one ought or
ought not to do. As the above argument is about the nature of protest action and whether it
ought to be banned, it is a value argument. The next thing to establish is whether this is an
inductive or a deductive argument. In deduction, the premises give sufficient support for the
conclusion, whereas in induction, the conclusion is subject to some probability. The above
argument’s premises give some support for a conclusion that ‘there are strong reasons to
pursue cloning of humans’. In most value arguments, a ‘leap’ is made to the conclusion. As
such, the argument is not a deductive argument, but an inductive one. We have also
ascertained in question 16 that there is a hidden premise. Therefore, option two, ‘value
inductive argument with a hidden premise’, is the correct answer.

19 There is a fallacy in the following argument.

Person A: ‘I don’t agree with Pres. Cyril Ramaphosa’s view on the redistribution of land
without compensation. Khanyi Mbau, South African actress, vehemently opposes his
view on land reform. Mbau says land redistribution of land without compensation will
collapse our economy.’

Which fallacy is committed in this argument?

1 argumentum ad baculum

2 argumentum ad vericundiam

3 petitio principii

4 argumentum ad populum

17
Answer: 2

Motivation: Often, it is quite a good idea to construct an argument by appealing to the expertise
of others. For example, if one wants to convince someone to eat healthy, because a medical
doctor recommends it, that would make for a strong argument. However, sometimes we appeal
to people who are not authorities at all, or who are not authorities in the relevant sort of way. In
this case, an actress is probably not the right sort of authority to be giving advice on land
reform. So, the fallacy of false appeal to authority is committed. This fallacy takes place when
an authority or famous person is quoted in order to get the conclusion the speaker wants (rather
than providing solid evidence to confirm or refute the claim). The fallacy of false appeal to
authority occurs when the “authority” cited is not an expert in the field under discussion (Van
den Berg 2014: 35). The latin name for this argument is argumentum ad veridcundiam. Option
two is therefore correct.

20 Identify the fallacy in the following argument.

‘Since we have the right to freedom of speech, it follows that I am right to say what I want
with impunity.’

1 Equivocation

2 Appeal to force

3 Faulty analogy

4 Slippery slope

Answer: 1

18
 PLS2601/202/1/2019

Motivation: The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word is used in one sense in one part of
an argument and in a different sense in another part of the same argument (Van den Berg
2014: 33). In the case, the two meanings of ‘freedom of speech’ are equivocated – a legal
freedom, such as the freedom of speech, does not mean one can simply say what one wants
without repercussion. Just because you are able to say what you want, does not mean you are
legally free to do so with impunity. The two senses of ‘freedom’ is therefore equivocated and
option one is correct.

3 CONCLUSION

This serves as a friendly reminder that your examination will consist of 50 multiple choice
questions and that it covers all the content of the module.

We hope that you are enjoying this module, and that you are feeling challenged, but
nevertheless excited, about learning how to think critically. Please remember to make use of
myUnisa and the e-tutors that are available for this module to prepare for your exam.

Best of luck for your examination preparation, and please do not hesitate to contact us on
myUnisa, or via email, for any assistance regarding the course content.

Sincerely

Dr Yolandi M. Coetser Ms Motlatsi Khosi

Module leader Team member
PLS2601 (Critical reasoning) PLS2601 (Critical reasoning)
e-mail: coetsym@unisa.ac.za e-mail: khosim@unisa.ac.za

19