Part One: Answer “true” or “false” and explain your answer. (5 pts. each, 25 pts. total)

1. If an argument is invalid, it must have a false conclusion.

2. If an argument is valid, any other argument with the same logical form will be valid..

3. If a deductive argument has true premises and a false conclusion, it may still be valid.

4. If a deductive argument has false premises and a true conclusion, it may still be valid.

5. If the premises are true, and the conclusion strictly follows from the premises, then the argument is sound.

Part Two: For each of the deductive arguments below (A – D), do the following steps

(I – IV). (10 pts. each for A –D, 40 pts. total):

I. Display the logical form.

II. Give the correct name of the argument form.

III. State whether the argument is valid or invalid.

IV. Explain, clearly and accurately, why the particular argument is valid or invalid (don’t just define “valid” or “invalid”). This part is worth 5 pts. each!

A. If I am a fish, then I will swim underwater. I am not a fish. Therefore, I will not swim underwater.

B. If I am a fish, then I will swim underwater. I am a fish. Therefore, I will swim underwater.

C. If I am a fish, then I will swim underwater. I will swim underwater. Therefore, I am a fish.

D. If I am a fish, then I will swim underwater. I will not swim underwater. Therefore, I am not a fish.

Part Three: Choose the one best answer. You do not need to explain your answer. (5 pts. each, 25 pts. total)

1. A good inductive argument must:

a) have true premises.

b) be valid.

c) be sound.

d) all of the above.

2. “Most of the Muslims I know personally refrain from eating pork. I know ALOT of Muslims.

Yusif is also a Muslim. Therefore, I’d guess that probably Yusif also refrains from eating pork.”

2.A. This argument above (#2) is an example of:

a) invalid deductive reasoning.

b) inductive analogy.

c) inductive generalization.

d) equivocation.

3. “Most of the Muslims I know personally refrain from eating pork. I know ALOT of Muslims. Therefore, I

would guess that probably most of the whole Muslim population refrains from eating pork.”

3.A. This argument above (#3) is an example of:

a) invalid deductive reasoning.

b) inductive analogy.

c) inductive generalization.

d) equivocation.

3.B. If I all the Muslims I knew lived in Texas, that would make the argument:

a) stronger, because the sample is more narrow.

b) weaker, because the sample is more narrow.

c) stronger, because the conclusion is more confident.

d) weaker, because the sample is more broad.

3.C. If I had known Muslims from many countries over a period of many years,

that would make the conclusion:

a) weaker, because the conclusion is more confident.

b) stronger, because the sample is more broad.

c) weaker, because the sample is more narrow.

d) stronger, because the sample is more narrow.

Part Four: Match each term with its appropriate definition. (2 pts. each, 10 pts. total)

TERMS:	DEFINITIONS:
1. Equivocation	A problem arising when some property changes into its opposite by degrees, and there is no clear and natural place at which to draw the line between the two.
2. Sorites Paradox	An argument procedure showing that some assumption leads to unacceptable consequences.
3. Reductio Ad Absurdum	A problem involving a difference in the use of key terms, which is mistaken for a disagreement of substance.
4. Circular Reasoning	A problem arising when key terms are used in different senses within the same argument, in order to make an invalid argument appear to be valid.
5. Semantic Dispute	An argument that uses its conclusion as a premise, but somehow disguises what it is doing.