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 bird is a vertebrate animal capable of flight.

Consider the following example of inductive reasoning: The Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays State University conducted their 2019 Kansas Speaks fall survey from August 26 to October 14, 2019.  A random sample of 352 adult residents of Kansas age 18 and older were surveyed by telephone (landline and cell phone) to assess their attitudes and opinions regarding various issues of interest to Kansas citizens.  This was a 16% response rate, meaning that 2200 calls were attempted.  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. People were contacted by email instead of telephone, and invited to respond to an online poll the link to which they could forward to anyone they know who would be interested in completing the survey.

Consider the following example of inductive reasoning: The Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays State University conducted their 2019 Kansas Speaks fall survey from August 26 to October 14, 2019.  A random sample of 352 adult residents of Kansas age 18 and older were surveyed by telephone (landline and cell phone) to assess their attitudes and opinions regarding various issues of interest to Kansas citizens.  This was a 16% response rate, meaning that 2200 calls were attempted.  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. For the six years prior to the survey, Kansans had polled as consistently against requiring background checks for all gun sales, primarily because laws of this sort would punish law-abiding gun owners who might want to sell their firearms to other law-abiding gun owners.

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 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 definition of a term is a claim that indicates something true about each and every thing to which the term applies.

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.

Consider the following example of inductive reasoning: The Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays State University conducted their 2019 Kansas Speaks fall survey from August 26 to October 14, 2019.  A random sample of 352 adult residents of Kansas age 18 and older were surveyed by telephone (landline and cell phone) to assess their attitudes and opinions regarding various issues of interest to Kansas citizens.  This was a 16% response rate, meaning that 2200 calls were attempted.  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. In the same study the Docking Institute also reports that 84.1% of Kansans surveyed consider Kansas a good-to-excellent place to live.

Consider the following example of inductive reasoning: In September 2019, each student in Mrs. Newsome’s first grade class (Hank James Elementary in Woolett, Massachusetts) was given three 2 oz. scoops of ice cream: one vanilla, one chocolate, and one bubble-gum tutti frutti.  2 of the 26 students preferred chocolate, 4 preferred vanilla, and 20 preferred bubble-gum tutti frutti.  Researchers concluded that, with respect to ice cream flavors, American children prefer bubble gum tutti frutti to chocolate or vanilla. Consider the following modification of the argument, and indicate 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.  Then explain why you think this is so: Mrs. Newsome told her class that unless they quieted down and minded their manners while the nice researchers were preparing the test samples, they wouldn’t get to try the bubble gum tutti frutti flavor; they would only get the chocolate and vanilla.

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) There can’t be a general economic recovery without people being willing to invest.  And let’s face it, people just aren’t willing.