CHAPTER 11 Schemes of Value – Good Reasoning Matters A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking test bank

---

 

Download  file with the answers

Not a member!
Create a FREE account here to get access and download this file with answers

---

CHAPTER 11
Schemes of Value

Multiple Choice Questions

1. Using uppercase letters to refer to actions, we can represent the scheme for slip¬pery-slope arguments as follows:
Premise 1: A causes B, B causes C, and so on to X.
Premise 2: X is undesirable.
Conclusion: ________.

a) A is a fact.
b) A is right.
c) A is wrong.
d) Bob should attempt doing A.
e) None of the above

2. A slippery-slope argument is one that shows that an action either should not (or should) be performed because ________.
a) it will begin a causal chain leading to an undesirable (or desirable) consequence
b) it will make a person slip and fall down a mountain
c) it will escalate quickly to unreasonable outcomes
d) it will lead us all to the end of the world
e) none of the above

3. Which of the following offers the best description of an argument by analogy?
a) The argument contains a premise that draws an analogy between two things.
b) The argument concludes that two things are analogous in a certain respect because they are analogous in one or more other ways.
c) The argument is not digital, and is thus analog.
d) The argument uses an analogy to clarify its contents.
e) None of the above

4. What do we call the two things compared in an analogy?
a) Analogues
b) Comparatives
c) Anthologies
d) All of the above
e) None of the above

5. In which of the following situations might we use an argument by analogy to best effect?
a) When we have to write English papers.
b) When we are forced to deal with new kinds of moral situations.
c) When asking our bosses for a raise.
d) All of the above
e) None of the above

6. More commonly, a counter-argument against analogy will be ________.
a) an appeal to precedent
b) an argument by dis¬analogy
c) an appeal to the president
d) an argument by non-analogy
e) none of the above

7. A good argument by analogy attributes a target property to Y on the basis of a premise that show (1) that the target property belongs to X; (2) that Y is similar to X in sufficient relevant respects; and (3) ________.
a) that X is similar to Y
b) that X and Y are not relevantly dissimilar
c) that X and Y are relevantly dissimilar
d) that X and Y are somehow related
e) none of the above

8. When we make an appeal to precedent, we are using a variation on which argument scheme?
a) Argument by analogy
b) Slippery slope argument
c) Appeal to ignorance
d) Appeal to precedent
e) None of the above

9. In constructing a counter-argument to an appeal to prec¬edent, one must argue against which of the following claims?
a) That the analogues compared are, in fact, analogous
b) That a particular moral or legal judgement applies in the situation that is associated with the precedent
c) That the precedent was itself well-established
d) Both A and B
e) Both B and C

10. A strong appeal to precedent shows that some action X should be allowed (or disallowed) because some analogous case has been allowed (or disallowed) or because ________.
a) some analogous case had not been noticed
b) future analogous cases should be allowed (or disallowed)
c) future generations will count on our present decisions
d) the example needs to be followed
e) none of the above

11. Which of the following is true of a two-wrongs argument?
a) An action or policy that might be questioned is justified as a response to another wrong it attempts to cancel or alleviate.
b) Two wrongs make even more wrong and should be avoided.
c) An action is justi¬fied by pointing to similarly questionable actions that have been allowed.
d) Both A and B
e) Both A and C

12. Identify the error in the following two-wrongs argument scheme:
Premise 1: X is a response to another wrong, Y, the unjust consequences of which it is designed to cancel or alleviate.
Premise 2: X is less wrong than Y.
Premise 3: Y is a wrong that ought to be rectified.
Premise 4: There is no morally preferable way to respond to Y.
Conclusion: X is justified.

a) Premise 1 is not part of the two-wrongs argument.
b) Premise 2 is not part of the two-wrongs argument.
c) Premise 3 is not part of the two-wrongs argument.
d) Premise 4 is not part of the two-wrongs argument.
e) There are no mistakes in the above argument scheme.

13. Often, two-wrongs-by-analogy arguments can be diagrammed as follows. Choose the best option to complete the diagram.
Premise 1: An action or policy X is similar to action or policy Y.
Premise 2: ________.
Conclusion: X should be accepted/allowed.

a) Y has been accepted/allowed.
b) Y has been rejected/not allowed.
c) Y has been ignored.
d) Y should be accepted/allowed.
e) None of the above

14. A fully explicit two-wrongs by analogy argument will conform to the following scheme. Choose the best option to complete the argument scheme.
Premise 1: A wrong, X, is analogous to other wrongs (Y, Z, W, . . .) that have been permitted.
Premise 2: Fairness in the form of consistency is more important than pre¬venting X.
Premise 3: ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬________.
Conclusion: X should be accepted/allowed.

a) There was no dire consequence when these other wrongs were permitted.
b) It would be consistent and fair to permit X.
c) Mom said that X was ok.
d) There is no morally preferable way to respond to the situation.
e) None of the above

15. ________ dictates that the response to wrong that someone commits must not be out of proportion with the wrong in question.
a) Rationality
b) The principle of proportionality
c) The principle of equivalence
d) An argument by analogy
e) None of the above

True or False Questions

1. Value claims and arguments are claims and arguments about what is the case.

2. Arguments that blend empirical and moral reasoning can be used to establish factual conclusions.

3. Slippery-slope arguments combine causal reasoning and moral considerations to obtain their conclusions.

4. The term “slippery-slope” is used because the negative version of this argument maintains that a given action, “A,” initiates our “sliding down a slippery slope of causal sequences to some inevitable consequence” that we should avoid.

5. We have an argument by analogy any time an analogy is used in a premise, or any time a comparison is used as a basis for drawing a conclusion.

6. In an argument by analogy, the analogues should be single entities.

7. In some cases, we may criticize an argument by analogy by accepting that the property emphasized in the conclusion applies to either of the proposed analogues but denying the proposed analogues themselves.

8. In a good argument by analogy the tie between the claimed similarities and the target property are tight enough to make the conclusion probable.

9. All good counter-arguments to analogy show that X and Y are relevantly dissimilar (where X and Y are the analogues on which the argument is based).

10. When we make an appeal to precedent, we are arguing by analogy.

11. Two-wrongs arguments never lend support to plausible conclusions.

12. Two-wrongs by analogy differs from an appeal to precedent in its acknowledgement that the action it justifies is less than morally ideal.

13. In many instances of two-wrongs by analogy, there are sub-arguments that justify P1 and P2.

14. Two-wrongs reasoning by analogy concludes that two specific wrongs cannot be compared.

15. The principle of proportionality implies that we must not overreact to a wrong that has been committed.

Short Answer Questions

1. What is a slippery-slope argument? When is such an argument strong?

2. How do empirical and moral reasoning come into play when evaluating slippery-slope arguments?

3. What is an analogy?

4. How would one construct a counter-argument against analogy?

5. When might we argue negatively against a new precedent?

6. What is two-wrongs reasoning? What defines a strong argument of this type?

7. What does a good two-wrongs by analogy argument establish?

 

Short Answer Questions

1. A slippery-slope argument is one that shows either (1) that an action should not be performed or allowed because it will begin a causal chain leading to an undesirable consequence or (2) that an action should be performed or allowed because it will begin a chain of causes leading to a desirable end. A good slippery-slope argument must be founded on a plausible causal chain and an acceptable claim about what is or is not desirable. (p. 279)
A strong slippery-slope argument is (explicitly or implicitly) a strong instance of the scheme for such reasoning. A good argument against slippery-slope reasoning must argue that the claimed causal chain will not develop as proposed or that the value of its ultimate consequence has been misjudged. The causal chain can be challenged by questioning one of the causal links, either by pointing out that it lacks support or that it is supported by poor causal reasoning. (pp. 277–8)

2. Here, we need to consider two questions that correspond to each of our two premises. An answer to the first—“Does the causal chain really hold?”—requires empirical reasoning. The second—“Is the final consequence properly judged to be desirable (or undesirable)?”—requires moral reasoning. (p. 277)

3. An analogy makes a comparison between two different things by identifying similar features they both possess. (p. 280)

4. A strong counter-argument against an argument by analogy must demonstrate that the criteria for a good argument by analogy are not (or cannot be) met in a specific case. (This can be done in two ways.) More commonly, a counter-argument against analogy will be an argument by dis¬analogy, which attempts to show that two purported analogues are not analogous. This is done by showing that they do not share necessary similarities or that there are relevant differences that distinguish them. (p. 284)

5. In dealing with new precedents, one may argue positively for a precedent or nega¬tively against one. In the latter case, we argue that some action or decision will set an undesirable precedent, paving the way for actions or situations that are unacceptable. (p. 289)

6. Two-wrongs reasoning attempts to justify an action normally considered wrong by pointing out that it cancels or alleviates some worse wrong. A good two-wrongs argument establishes that (1) the wrong that is said to be permissible is a response to another wrong; the unjust consequences of which it tries to cancel or alleviate; (2) the wrong that is said to be permissible is less wrong than any injustice it attempts to cancel or alleviate; and (3) there is no morally preferable way to respond to the injustice in question. (p. 296)

7. A good two-wrongs-by-analogy argu¬ment establishes that (1) the wrong that is said to be permissible is analogous to other wrongs that have been permitted; (2) fairness in the form of consistency is more important than preventing the wrong in question; and (3) there is no morally preferable way to respond in the situation. (p. 298)