The following argument violates one or more of the rules discussed in Chapter 2
ID: 3492456 • Letter: T
Question
The following argument violates one or more of the rules discussed in Chapter 2 on Generalizations. Which is it? Last Friday I gave a dollar to a homeless woman, and the next day I found $10 on the ground. Therefore it is proved that all good deeds are rewarded. Rule 7: Use more than one example. This argument bases a generalization on a single example. Rule 9: Consider background rates. This argument fails to say how often the writer gives money to the homeless. If the writer does this regularly, but only finds money once, or very occasionally, then the generalization is not justified. Rule 11: Consider counterexamples. This argument fails to address the fact that most everyone can think of occasions on which a good deed has not seemed to be rewarded. All of the above. This argument makes a very poor generalization. The following argument violates one or more of the rules discussed in Chapter 5 about Arguments from Causes. Which is it? Every time I wake up with a headache I discover that I still have my shoes on. Therefore sleeping with one's shoes on must cause headaches. Rule 18: Start with correlations. This argument does not begin with an observation of correlated events. Rule 19: Consider alternative explanations. This argument does not take into account mat the reason for both the headache and the shoes might be some third thing, like falling asleep drunk. Rule 21: Expect complexity. This argument tails to consider that sleeping with shoes may have a complicated relationship to having a headache, so that it may cause headaches in some cases, but not in others. All of the above. This is a very poor argument which violates multiple principles about good causal arguments.Explanation / Answer
4.
Answer:
Rule-9
Description:
A generalization (or generalisation) is the formulation of general concepts from specific instances by abstracting common properties. Generalizations posit the existence of a domain or set of elements, as well as one or more common characteristics shared by those elements (thus creating a conceptual model). As such, they are the essential basis of all valid deductive inferences. The process of verification is necessary to determine whether a generalization holds true for any given situation.
Generalization is the process of identifying the parts of a whole, as belonging to the whole. The parts, completely unrelated may be brought together as a group, belonging to the whole by establishing a common relation between them.
It must be stated that, the parts cannot be generalized into a whole until a common relation is established among all the parts. But this does not mean that the parts are unrelated, only that no common relation has been established yet for the generalization.
5.
Answer:
All of the above
Description:
Metaphysical (or philosophical) naturalism is the view that nature as studied by the natural sciences is all that exists. Naturalists deny the existence of a supernatural God, souls, an afterlife, or anything supernatural. Nothing exists outside or beyond the physical universe.
The argument from reason seeks to show that naturalism is self-refuting, or otherwise false and indefensible.
According to Lewis,
One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the naturalistic worldview].... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears.... [U]nless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.
—C. S. Lewis, "Is Theology Poetry?", The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses
More precisely, Lewis's argument from reason can be stated as follows:
1. No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.