Question

1. Consider this argument: “We should continue to resist the calls to change the NFL franchise Washington Redskins’ team name. Recognized that other professional sports franchises have names that are equally insensitive and/or offensive. For example, the Pittsburgh Pirates are effectively celebrating a group of people who each year take hundreds of innocent people hostages and often steal commercial property. And yet there is no push to change the names of these other sports franchise.” what is the secondary analogue of this argument?

A: the Washington redskins team name

B: the insensitivity and/or defensiveness of the Washington redskins team name

2. Evaluate the following argument: “if one must listen to music from Fleetwood Mac, then one should listen to the early years of their music. Its false that one must listen to music from Fleetwood mac. Hence one should not listen to the early years of their music.

A: Deductive--invalid
B: inductive-non-cogent

3. which describes this text better:” one ought not disparage classical music. that is, of course, unless he or she desires to be seen as an ogre.”

A: Argument

B: Description

4. evaluate the following argument: “you must choose either to foster a literary mind or mathematical mind. you have chosen to foster a mathematical mind. so, you must have chosen not to foster a literary mind.

A: Deductive-invalid

B: Deductive-valid and unsound

C: inductive-cogent

5. Identify the fallacy of this argument: “The integrity of smith’s research requires special scrutiny. Smith has twice in the past been found guilty of plagiarizing findings and means of presentations that other researchers have published.

A: slippery slope

B:no fallacy

6. Consider this argument: “We should continue to resist the calls to change the NFL franchise Washington Redskins’ team name. Recognized that other professional sports franchises have names that are equally insensitive and/or offensive. For example, the Pittsburgh Pirates are effectively celebrating a group of people who each year take hundreds of innocent people hostages and often steal commercial property. And yet there is no push to change the names of these other sports franchise.” what is the primary analogue of this argument?

The Pittsburgh pirates team name

B: the insensitivity and/or offensiveness of the Pittsburgh pirates team name

7. Evaluate the following argument: “if Butch is a legal driver, then Butch is at least 16 years of age. Butch is at least 16 years of age. Hence, Butch must be a legal driver.

A: deductive-invalid

B: inductive-cogent

Answer 1

1. analogue refers to the items that are to be compared. in the example, the author is trying to support his argument by comparing the other franchise name "pittsburgh pirates" which is also offensive and yet there is no one is talking about those franchise names. so he is trying to defend his intent not to change the name "washington redskins". the second analogue is  the insensitivity and/or defensiveness of the Washington redskins team name.

2. it is an invalid deduction. the first part is saying that if one wants to listen music, then one should listen to the early years of their music. but after that author staight ways jumps to say that it is false to listen music without any support. so it is deductive invalid.

3.argument uses reason as the evidence to support the conclusion. but description tries to understand why or how fact occurs. that means in description conclusion is taken as fact and reason is cause of that fact. here author is trying to support his point by saying "unless  he or she desires to be seen as an ogre". so this is an argument.

6. analogue refers to the items that are to be compared. in the example, the author is trying to support his argument by comparing the other franchise name "pittsburgh pirates" . he is first comparing the other franchise name. so this must be the primary analogue.

7. a cogent argument is something trying to establish a probable but not conclusive support for the conlusion. in this case Butch is at least 16 years of age. this true premise. no way we can conclude that Butch must be a legal driver. but there is highly probable that Butch can be a legal driver. Author is not trying to deduce anything he is trying to predict or expect regarding Butch. so this argument is inductive-cogent.