CHAPTER 12 Ethotic Schemes – 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 12
Ethotic Schemes

Multiple Choice Questions

1. As Aristotle puts it, we are more likely to accept arguments and conclusions offered by ________.
a) people of whom we think highly
b) your local mayor
c) people with blue eyes
d) people who were very popular in high school
e) none of the above

2. The “ethos” of “ethotic” arguments refers to ________.
a) a person’s self-esteem
b) a person’s character
c) the character a person plays in a movie
d) a person’s dream vacation
e) none of the above

3. In which kinds of circumstances do ethotic considerations most often arise?
a) In circumstances in which we do not have the desire to investigate a question in sufficient detail to decide the proper answer to it
b) In circumstances in which we trust the individual offering evidence
c) In circumstances in which we do not have the time, the means, or the ability to investigate a question in sufficient detail to decide the proper answer to it
d) All of the above
e) None of the above

4. Arguments are called ________ (“for the person”) when they defend a claim or point of view by defending its proponent.
a) ad populum
b) ad hominem
c) pro homine
d) ethotic arguments
e) none of the above

5. Arguments are called ________ (“against the person”) when they attack a claim or point of view by attack¬ing its proponent.
a) ad populum
b) ad hominem
c) pro homine
d) guilt by association
e) argument against authority
6. ________ arguments, also called “appeals to popularity,” attempt to establish a con¬clusion on the basis of its popular appeal.
a) Ad populum
b) Ad hominem
c) Pro homine
d) Ethotic argument
e) Guilt by association

7. ________ reasoning argues for a claim by showing that it is held by some person X.
a) Ad populum
b) Ad hominem
c) Pro homine
d) Guilt by association
e) Argument against authority

8. Which of the following is an informal circumstance in which we would rely on pro homine reasoning?
a) Trusting an individual’s recommendation of movies
b) Obtaining a diagnosis from a medical doctor
c) Receiving an edifying account of political developments in a particular country
d) All of the above
e) None of the above

9. A good pro homine argument maintains that it should be accepted because X is knowledgeable, trustworthy, and ________.
a) handsome
b) free of bias
c) well-spoken
d) all of the above
e) none of the above

10. Identify which of the following is NOT one of the five conditions for a good argument by authority?
a) A strong argument from authority must identify the authority appealed to and state their credentials.
b) A strong argument from authority relies on an easily-recognizable authority.
c) A strong argument from authority relies on an authority with credentials that are relevant to the issue discussed.
d) A strong argument from authority appeals to authorities who are not biased.
e) A strong argument from authority is possible only when there is wide agreement among the relevant experts
f) A strong argument from authority must appeal to an authority who belongs to an area of knowledge where a consensus among authorities is in principle possible because there are universally accepted criteria for making judgements in that field.

11. Which of the following individuals would be the most relevant authority on whether the water coming out of your kitchen faucet has been causing your stomach cramps.
a) Your critical thinking professor
b) The mechanic at your local bike shop
c) Your gastroenterologist
d) Your local member of parliament
e) None of the above

12. In which of the following fields is it most appropriate to speak of authorities?
a) Finger painting
b) Economics
c) Ghosts
d) Internet memes
e) None of the above

13. A fully developed strong appeal to authority will be an instance of the following scheme. Choose the best option to complete this scheme.
Premise 1: X is an authority with credentials c, who believes and states y.
Premise 2: Credentials c are relevant to y.
Premise 3: X is not biased.
Premise 4: ________.
Premise 5: y is an appropriate field in which consensus is possible.
Conclusion: y should be accepted.

a) There is wide agreement among the relevant experts over y.
b) There is some agreement among the relevant experts over c.
c) There is wide agreement among the relevant experts over c.
d) There is wide agreement among the relevant experts over the reliability of X.
e) None of the above

14. Identify which of the six listed below is NOT one of the five possible ways one can reject authority in a good argument against authority.
a) The authority’s credentials are questionable.
b) The authority’s claims are poorly stated.
c) The credentials cited are irrelevant to the issue in question.
d) The alleged authority is biased.
e) The topic under scrutiny is one where there is significant disagreement among the relevant experts.
f) The topic is one where expertise cannot be claimed.

15. The following scheme is the one used for eyewitness testimony. Choose the best option to complete this scheme.
Premise 1: O was in a good position to observe X.
Premise 2: There are no obvious factors that would bias the account given.
Premise 3: ________.
Conclusion: O’s account of X is reliable.
a) Where O = the observer and X is the object or event observed.
b) O has reliable eyesight.
c) O is willing to provide an account of eyewitness testimony
d) O has documented the observation.
e) X is recognized as having taken place.

16. ________ is an argument that attributes “guilt” to a person or group on the basis of some association that is known or thought to exist between that person or group and some other person or group of dubious beliefs or behaviour.
a) Ad populum
b) Ad hominem
c) Pro homine
d) Ethotic argument
e) Guilt by association

True or False Questions

1. An in-depth investigation of a position can be replaced by an appeal to the person who defends it.

2. An appropriate appeal to a person does count as evidence for a position.

3. Ad Populum are an instance of pro homine because they justify conclusions by noting that particular people—i.e., most people (or most people in a group)—subscribe to them.

4. Many appeals to popularity are strong arguments, because they are effective when they appeal to a strong desire to belong to a group.

5. In a world where we had the time and ability to investigate every issue we had to resolve, we would not need to rely on ad populum arguments.

6. Simple pro homine and ad populum arguments can often be adequate support for a conclusion. They are relatively strong argument schemes.

7. It is arguable that we adopt the majority of our beliefs because we accept the views of authorities who recommend them.

8. We should keep in mind that the very best appeal to an authority is a secondary way of establish¬ing a conclusion.

9. Anonymous experts lend just as much authority to a claim as a named authority, and so an audi¬ence should accept the claims made by an authority, anonymous or named.

10. A good appeal to authority could, for example, cite the authority of scientists employed by the nuclear industry in a debate over the question of whether, say, a nuclear power plant is safer than a coal power plant.

11. A selective appeal to an authority who takes a stand with which other authorities disagree is usually inappropriate.

12. Lack of agreement amongst authorities is a clear sign that a claim is false.

13. We can quote and depend on websites offering arguments in the same way that we quote and depend on authorities.

14. The essence of an ad hominem is an attack against the credibility of a particular indi¬vidual.

15. Good ad hominem arguments usually appear in contexts where an appeal to a pro homine has occurred or might occur.

16. Eyewitness testimony is not perfectly reliable and can be influenced by a host of factors like a person’s vision, attentiveness, memory, and the anticipation of what they expected to see.

17. Association arguments (guilt-by-association/honour-by-association) can typically serve as definitive substitutes for thorough criti¬cal examinations of the views of a person or group.

18. The first condition for appropriate guilt-by-association arguments requires that the alleged association really does exist.

Short Answer Questions

1. What are ethotic schemes of arguments?

2. Why are appeals to popularity often considered to be dubious?

3. What is the scheme for an ad populum argument? Wherein lies its weakness?

4. What is an ad hominem argument? How do we distinguish regular occurrences of this argument from abusive ad hominem arguments?

5. What do we mean when we ask whether someone was in a good position to observe?

6. When is a guilt-by-association (or honour by association) argument strong?

7. Do all arguments follow an argument scheme?

 

Short Answer Questions

1. “Ethotic” schemes of argument are ones that, in one way or another, base conclusions on premises about the people who stand behind arguments: those who argue, provide support for premises through their character or expertise, or adjudi¬cate reasoning. (p. 307)

2. Appeals to popularity can be problematic because popularity is not a good gauge of what is acceptable or unacceptable, true or false, or right or wrong. Indeed, popular opinion is frequently influenced by prejudice, superstition, outdated theories, and ill-considered judgements. (p. 310)

3. In such contexts, an ad populum argument is an instance of pro homine that can be schematized as follows:
Premise 1: It is popularly held that y.
Premise 2: This is a context in which popular opinion is knowledgeable, trustworthy, and free of bias.
Conclusion: y should be accepted.
There are many contexts in which this kind of argument will be weak because Premise 2 is not acceptable. (p. 311)

4. An Ad hominem argument gives us reasons for not taking someone’s position seriously or for dismissing it altogether. A good ad hominem bases this claim on premises that show that someone is in some way unreliable. The version of ad hominem we call an “argu¬ment against authority” argues that a person is not a reliable authority and should not, therefore, be taken seriously. (p. 318) It is important to distinguish ad hominem attacks that discredit a person’s position because of their character from attacks on the person alone. The latter is often called an abusive ad hominem because it does little more than hurl abuse. (p. 320)

5. and whether they were optimal for the observations being made and reported.We are also interested in his or her intellectual and emotional condition. Did he or she have the skills necessary for making an accurate report of the event? Could he or she understand the language of those around him or her, for example? Was he or she in an environment with which he or she were familiar? And was he or she unaffected by factors like fatigue or emotional excitability? Some of these questions may be difficult to answer because the source for such answers will be the very same as the source of the report—the eyewitness. (pp. 324–5)

6. A guilt-by-association argument is strong when, and only when
1. there is good reason to believe that the alleged association between X and Y really does exist;
2. there is good reason to question the beliefs or the behaviour of Y; and
3. there is no good reason to differentiate X from Y.
In keeping with these conditions, the conditions for a good honour-by-association argument are the same, except that condition (2) becomes “there is good reason to credit the beliefs or the behaviour of Y.” (pp. 326–7)

7. Sometimes no specific argument scheme is used, and sometimes the premises contain a mixture of specific schemes. Where there is no specific scheme at all, we must depend on the general criteria of relevance and sufficiency and acceptability in assessing an argument. If an argument is a mixture of a variety of specific schemes, we must appeal to a variety of specific criteria. (p. 330)