1. PHIL 151
Review

2. Exam:
Tuesday, November 7th, 9am (Confirm this on your own exam schedule!!).
2 hours long.
Bring two pens! No other outside material (no notes, books, dictionaries, laptops).
No watches or phones allowed.
BRING YOUR ID CARD!

3. Exam There are FIVE sections… A. Multiple Choice [10 points]
B. Explaining Basic Concepts [10 points]
C. Representing and Assessing Argument Forms [15 points]
D. Identifying Fallacies [10 points]
E. Evaluating Arguments [30 points]

4. Basic Concepts
Write a short explanation of the following concepts and terms.
Valid argument
The difference between extensional and intensional meaning
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy
A genus/species definition.
The fallacy of equiprobabilification
Ad hominem tu quoque fallacy
Mill’s method of Agreement
Sample and target group
The explanatory virtue of explanatory reach
The hypothetico-deductive method of hypothesis testing
The four features of causal relations: precedence, connection, regularity, dependence
The Gambler’s fallacy

5. Valid argument: impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: correlation does not equal causation.
A genus/species definition: species is a subclass of genus
Ad hominem tu quoque fallacy: the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.
Sample: group of people to study | target: the population of study

6. hypothetico-deductive method: results obtained through direct observation and experiemntation and that will, through inference, predict further effects that can then be verified or disproved by empirical evidence derived from other experiments.
The Gambler’s fallacy: a situation that is pure random chance, the outcome can be affected by previous outcomes.
Extensional meaning: listing all of the instantiations/ Intentional meaning: specifying the properties that an object needs to have.
The fallacy of equiprobabilification: Assuming odds based purely off number 10 people in this race, i have a 1 in 10 chance of winning

7. Mill’s method of Agreement: Phenomena share the common property that allow to draw causality (by agreement) Others are difference and concomitant variation.
The fallacy of equiprobabilification: Assuming odds based purely off number 10 people in this race, i have a 1 in 10 chance of winning.
Mill’s method of Agreement: Phenomena share the common property that allow to draw causality (by agreement) Others are difference and Concomitant Variation.
The explanatory virtue of explanatory reach: explanatory power. Explanations should apply in a RANGE of similar context NOT just one Hypothesis "story“.

8. If event C causes event E, then…
C occurs before E (Precedence)
C and E are connected: either C and E occur ‘close’ together in space and time, or there is a causal chain of events E1, E2, … such that C is connected with E1, E1 is connected with E2 and so on, until we reach E (Connection)
Events like C are regularly followed by events like E (Regularity)
E depends on C; C makes E necessary (Dependence/Necessity)

9. Find your argument. Not R If P then Q If Q then not R Q Not P Not Q
R and Q
If not R then Q
Not P and not R P
R or not P
P and Q
Not Q or R
If R then P
P or Q
If Q then R
If Not R then not Q
P and R
If R the not P
P or not Q
Q or R
If P then not R R
Use the first four letters of your name (either your first name or your last name – or both) to create your own argument form.
The first three letters give you premises, and the fourth gives you a conclusion.
Is your argument form valid or invalid? If it’s invalid, can you rearrange the sentences to make it valid?

10. Remember those Fallacies
Equivocation
Slippery Slope
Red Herring
Appeal to Pity
Begging the Question
Appeal to the People
Burden of Proof/No Nay-sayers
Ad Hominem Abusive, Circumstantial, and Tu Quoque
Post-hoc ergo propter hoc
No True Scotsman
Straw Person
Texas Sharp-Shooter
Can you…
Give a short definition of each fallacy?
Give an example of each fallacy? Try constructing an argument or debate that illustrates two or three fallacies.

11. Assess the argument
Write a short assessment of the following argument: There’s nothing wrong with killing animals for food. For instance, turkeys are pretty stupid. I used to have turkeys on my farm, and they were only marginally more intelligent than my carrots. When it rained, the turkeys would just stand there getting wet, even though the door to their coop was open. Some people think that turkeys and other animals fear being slaughtered, but I can’t imagine they have a clue what’s going on. Fish aren’t too bright either, but we can’t all eat fish.

12. Assess the argument
Write a short assessment of the following argument:
If there were machines that looked like people, and that were capable of imitating our actions as far as it is practically possible, there would still remain a very certain test by which we could tell that they were not really people. Machines could never use words or other signs arranged in such a manner as is competent to us in order to declare our thoughts to others: for we may easily conceive a machine to be so constructed that it emits sounds, and even that it emits some correspondent to the action upon it of external objects which cause a change in its organs; for example, if touched in a particular place it may demand what we wish to say to it; if in another it may cry out that it is hurt, and such like; but not that it should arrange them variously so to reply appropriately to what is said in its presence, as even people of the lowest grade of intellect can do. (Rene Descartes, “Meditations on First Philosophy”)

13. Good luck on the exam,
and enjoy the summer!