To ensure academic integrity, lecture exams are remotely proctored using Honorlock at a location of my choice with an external USB camera positioned to provide a side-view of your testing workspace. I understand that Honorlock uses AI and live proctors to monitor for academic dishonesty.  I certify that during these exams I will NOT use or have access to: Cell phones, smartwatches, or tablets. Second monitors or additional computers. Headphones or earbuds. Textbooks, notes, or cheat sheets (unless explicitly allowed by the professor). Other people in the room. I acknowledge that the use of any of these unapproved resources will result in a grade of zero and a referral for academic dishonesty.

Thank you for your incredible patience with the Canvas hack and the shifting schedules. I know it’s been a whirlwind, and I’m so proud of how this class handled the curveballs. Click “Submit” below and go have a great rest of your day!  I will try to get grades up soon.   Have a good summer! 

For the following defective definition, indicate if it is too broad, too narrow, circular, or some combination of the three. If it is too broad or too narrow, demonstrate the problem with an example of what the proposed definition wrongly applies to or fails to apply to. If it is circular, explain what you are thinking. (4 points)A hypothetical syllogism is a kind of deductive argument with two premises, at least one of which is in if-then form, where the conclusion follows validly from the premises.

For the following defective definition, indicate if it is too broad, too narrow, circular, or some combination of the three. If it is too broad or too narrow, demonstrate the problem with an example of what the proposed definition wrongly applies to or fails to apply to. If it is circular, explain what you are thinking. (4 points)An argument is a series of true claims (the premises) offered in support of a further claim (the conclusion). 

For the following argument, do two things: (1) analyze it in terms of new case, comparison cases, known similarities, and inferred similarity, and (2) indicate what seems to you the most significant relevant dissimilarity between the new case and the sample cases. (2 points for each of the five items, 10 points total)Parents are largely free to raise their children as they see fit. If they want them to practice Islam, they have them practice Islam. If they want them to learn Chinese, they teach them Chinese. If they want them to play soccer, they teach them soccer. If they want them to dress in yellow pinafores, they dress them in yellow pinafores. If they want them to eat oranges, they have them eat oranges. And so on. Basically, parents get to shape their children’s lives according to their own values and preferences. Technology is currently being developed that will enable parents to select, not just their children’s “nurture,” but also their “nature,” which is to say, their genotypes (their DNA). Just as parents should be free to raise their children as they see fit, they should be free to design their children as they see fit.

Consider the following example of inductive reasoning:352 adult residents of Kansas age 18 and older were recently surveyed to assess their attitudes and opinions regarding various issues of interest to Kansas citizens. This was a 16% response rate, meaning that 2200 people were contacted. Those contacted were drawn from a pool of potential survey participants pre-selected to be representative of the overall Kansas population with regard to three variables: gender, age, and metro/non-metro residency. Where the respondents deviated from known demographics — e.g., when more women responded than their proportion in the general population — the survey results were weighted to correct for these deviations. Among the data generated by the survey, 88.1% of the respondents supported “requiring background checks on all gun sales” (73.5% “strongly support,” and 14.6% “somewhat support”). They concluded that if all adult Kansas residents were surveyed, it is 95% probable that these findings (88.1% in favor; 73.5 % strongly, 14.6% somewhat) would be found, with a margin of error of plus or minus 5.2%. In other words, they were highly confident that support among Kansans for requiring background checks on all gun sales fell in the range of 82.9% to 93.3%.Given the following modification of the argument, indicate two things: (1) if it strengthens the argument (makes it more likely that the conclusion is true), weakens the argument (makes this less likely), or has no effect, and (2) why you think this is so.Only 100 people were contacted, but 78 of them completed the survey, a much higher response rate.

For the following argument, do two things: (1) analyze it in terms of new case, comparison cases, known similarities, and inferred similarity, and (2) indicate what seems to you the most significant relevant dissimilarity between the new case and the sample cases. (2 points for each of the five items, 10 points total)About 50 years ago, hand-held scientific calculators suddenly became affordable to the average American high school student, and it set off quite the controversy. Should they be allowed in the classroom? Would using a calculator to do arithmetic for you, to find square roots, to call up constants like pi, to perform trigonometric functions and things of that sort — would this be cheating? Would this give rise to a generation of mathematical ignoramuses? Should it be permitted? Teachers gave the tech a try and now it’s more or less standard in the schools. Today the big controversy is generative AI — computer programs that can compose essays, design buildings, compose songs, generate images, and so on. Allowing calculators in the schools turned out just fine — it made tedious things so much easier. It didn’t ruin math exams, and students are no more mathematically ignorant than they were 50 year ago. Generative AI should similarly be welcomed into the schools.

For the following argument, do three things: (1) identify the terms of the argument, assigning them symbols; (2) set the syllogism out in standard AEIO form, marking the distributed terms with asterisks; and (3) say whether or not the argument is valid, explaining how one of the validity rules is violated if it is invalid. If the argument is an enthymeme, complete it, if possible, to make come out valid. (2 points for the symbolization, 4 points for standard form, 4 points for the evaluation, 10 points total)No name is a predicable. For names never come in contradictory pairs. And nothing is a predicable unless it comes in a contradictory pair.

For the following argument, do three things: (1) identify the propositions involved, assigning them symbols; (2) set the argument out in standard form either as a hypothetical or a disjunctive syllogism; and (3) say whether it is valid or not, indicating what type of argument it is: denying the necessary condition, affirming the disjunct, etc. If there is a missing premise or conclusion, complete the argument, if possible, to make it come out valid. (2 points for the symbolization, 4 points for standard form, 4 points for the evaluation, 10 points total)If it is agreed that things are either the result of coincidence or for an end, and these cannot be the result of coincidence, it follows that they must be for an end.

For the following argument, do three things: (1) identify the terms of the argument, assigning them symbols; (2) set the syllogism out in standard AEIO form, marking the distributed terms with asterisks; and (3) say whether or not the argument is valid, explaining how one of the validity rules is violated if it is invalid. If the argument is an enthymeme, complete it, if possible, to make come out valid. (2 points for the symbolization, 4 points for standard form, 4 points for the evaluation, 10 points total)Some studious people aren’t friendly. But people are friendly if they value other people. So some people who value others aren’t studious.