You are on page 1of 7

EXAM ONE STUDY GUIDE A - C. [No solutions necessary.

AND

EXTRA PRACTICE: SOLUTIONS

D. For each of the following arguments, identify the premises and conclusion. Give the premises in an enumerated list, draw a line, and then write the conclusion. 1) 1. My mommy says Im perfect. _________________________ 2. Im perfect. 2) 1. Mars is similar to the earth in that both are planets that orbit the sun. 2. The earth is inhabited by living things. ________________________________________________________ 3. Mars must also be inhabited by living things. 1. Sixty percent of the students at Seattle Pacific University are female. 2. Pat is a student at Seattle Pacific University. _______________________________________________________ 3. Pat is 60 percent female. 1. Jason is an atheist. 2. Atheists find freedom offensive. 3. Communists find freedom offensive. 4. Communists are un-American. _______________________________ 5. Jason is un-American. 1. Professor Moriarty could not outsmart Sherlock Holmes. 2. No one is smarter than Moriarty. _______________________________________________ 3. No body outsmarts Sherlock Holmes. 1. The prohibition of alcohol and harder drugs was well intentioned and based on legitimate concerns about the dangers of alcohol consumption. 2. The prohibition of alcohol and harder drugs also led to a highly profitable black market ruled by organized crime and marked by violence. 3. The prohibition of alcohol was a mistake. ___________________________________________________________ 4. The prohibition of hard drugs is also a mistake. 1. Marijuana and lettuce are both gifts from God. 2. It is not wrong to enjoy lettuce. _______________________________________ 3. It is not wrong to enjoy marijuana.

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

E. For each situation given, invent at least three hypotheses aimed at explaining what went wrong or at solving the problem. Then, for each hypothesis, describe one or more experiments or inquiries that could confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis.

[Answers will, of course, vary. example.]

Each answer should, however, make sense given the

1) Someone you have been dating has a birthday coming up, so you call a florist and order flowers for the occasion. Two days later the person is cold and distant. A) You got the date of his/her birthday work. Experiment: Ask his/her mother. B) He/she doesnt like flowers. Experiment: Buy flowers again and check his/her reaction. C) The flowers were never delivered. Experiment: Call the florist and make sure nothing went wrong. 2) After mailing your paycheck to the bank, you write a check to pay your rent. The rent check bounces. A) Your paycheck never got to the bank. Experiment: Check your statement to ensure the paycheck was actually deposited. B) You overestimated your balance even with the paycheck deposited. Experiment: Rebalance your check book. C) Your landlord forged the check for an amount higher than that for which it was originally written. Experiment: Obtain a copy of the returned check and look for evidence of tampering. 3) On a rainy evening you return to your ground-floor apartment and discover that you have been burglarized. You cant believe it, because you are certain you locked the door when you went out. You share the apartment with a roommate. A) Your roommate left the door unlocked. Experiment: Find out when the roommate left and whether or not he/she remembers locking the door behind them. B) The burglar entered the apartment through something other than the door. Experiment: Look around the apartment for plausible points of entry and damage to those areas that might indicate forced entry. C) The burglar was actually your roommate--he/she is stealing your stuff and selling it. Experiment: Find a copy of your roommates bank statement and look for a sudden, unexplainable increase in funds available. 4) You are a manager of a department store, and, although business has been brisk lately, your chief accountant informs you that the store is losing money. A) The store is getting a large number of customers, but those customers arent spending much money. Experiment: Check the average total of each transaction. B) Your chief accountant is stealing from you. Experiment: Check the books to see if any money is missing. C) A fairy named Sooki sneaks into your store every night and steals money. Experiment: Set up cameras and attempt to catch her in the act. 5) After settling in a new location you buy some seeds for a flower garden. When the flowers come up, they are stunted and of poor quality. A) The seeds were bad. Experiment: Check with the manufacture for bad lot numbers.

B) Something is wrong with the location you picked--maybe too light sunlight or poor soil quality. Experiment: Relocate the plants and see if their condition improves. C) You arent watering your plants enough. Experiment: Increase the amount you water them and see if their condition improves. F. Consider the following arguments. In each of them, identify the hypothesis (or hypotheses) and evaluate them according to the four criteria we discussed in class. Is the argument weak or strong? If it is weak, suggest a rival hypothesis that is better recommended by the criteria we discussed in class. Finally, suggest a way to test your new hypothesis by deducing an implication from it and finding a way to confirm or falsify the implication. 1) Frederick has been having trouble with his watch. It keeps losing time. He had the battery replaced, but that didnt help. So, Frederick hypothesized that an invisible demon had possessed his watch, slowing down the mechanism. He took the watch to a priest for an exorcism, but that didnt help either. Frederick concluded that the demon must be the type of demon that cannot be exorcised. Hypothesis 1: The battery in the watch was failing. This hypothesis had a falsified implication: replacing the battery did not improve the watchs performance. Hypothesis 2: An invisible demon has possessed the watch and slowed down the mechanism. This hypothesis had a falsified implication: an exorcism would cause the watch to function normally. Hypothesis 3: An invisible, exorcism-proof demon is possessing the watch and causing it to slow down. The argument for hypothesis 3 is weak. This hypothesis comes up short on a number of criteria. In terms of consistency with well-established theories, this hypothesis comes up short in several ways. First, even people who believe in demons do not usually believe that they possess objects. Second, most people probably dont believe in demons any more. Third, we typically adopt the principle that mechanical failures are caused by purely mechanical problems. This third hypothesis also fails the simplicity test. It posits something very strange--a non-exorcisable, invisible demon--to explain something very simple--a broken watch. We dont need to posit a spiritual entity to solve this physical problem. It is also not clear if this hypothesis has any predictive power: what further testable facts does it imply? Alternative hypothesis: A gear in the watch is loose. Test: Tighten the screws in the watch and see if it keeps accurate time. 2) A detective is trying to explain two murders that are remarkably similar in detail yet happened at the same time in very different locations--one in Florida and one in Alaska. The detective hypothesizes that the murderer has somehow learned to travel faster than the speed of light. Hypothesis: The murderer learned how to travel faster than the speed of light allowing him to commit murders at the same time. This argument is clearly weak for a number of reasons. First, it is not compatible with accepted theories. Travel beyond the speed of light is impossible. Second, it fails the simplicity test. A better story can easily be devised that does not include magical near-time-travel. Alternative hypothesis: Two killers--by coincidence--committed similar crimes at similar times in different places.

Test: Investigate each crime separately and see if unique logical killers can be discovered for each homicide. 3) A certain biology professor noted a correlation between increased activity among bees and the beginning of spring. He hypothesized that as bees flap their wings, their body heat increases, which warms the air around them, thus bringing about the changes in seasons from winter to spring. Hypothesis: As bees flap their wings, their body heat increases, which warms the air around time, which causes the seasons to change from winter to spring. This argument is clearly weak. First, we have a rival, well-established theory of season changes involving the Earths axis and what parts of the globe are closest to the sun. Furthermore, this rival theory has greater predictive success--areas without bees still experience season changes. Also, we dont seem to have enough bees to generate a substantial increase in the temperature of an entire hemisphere of earth. Alternative hypothesis: Bee activity increase in early spring because this is when flowers begin blooming. Test: Introduce blooming flowers to the bees earlier to see if their activity increases earlier as well. 4) Jennifer has been having trouble with her computer. For example, occasionally a few letters in a document get misplaced (without any action on her part). In an effort to account for these glitches, Jennifer hypothesizes that the computer has developed free will and is now occasionally making its own choices. Hypothesis: Her computer has developed free will and is now occasionally making its own choices. This argument is weak. The argument clearly is not compatibility with current beliefs about free will--no synthetic system is free; it only operates according to its programming, and you cannot program freedom. Also, there are good reasons to believe that nothing has free will. In terms of predictive power, this hypothesis seems to entail lots of further facts--like that her computer would be doing other things on its own. However, no such further facts seem to be occurring. Its also an overly complex story. We can tell a much simpler one about user error, software error, or a virus. None of these rival explanations required assigning metaphysical freedom to a PC--if it was a Mac, that would be another thing. Alternative Hypothesis: Jennifers computer has a virus. Test: Run an antivirus check. If the computer has a virus, the software should detect it. G. Suppose you are a detective trying to solve a burglary. The specific evidence under consideration is this: Ms. Vogels TV is missing. Its a small TV set easily carried by one person. McGraw was seen lurking about Vogels house while she was on vacation, and McGraws fingerprints are on the table where Vogel kept her TV. Furthermore, as a detective, you happen to have some relevant background information: McGraw and Kingston both have a record or petty theft, and both live within easy walking distance of Vogels house. Given the evidence and the background information that has been reliably established in the past, which of these hypotheses is preferable and why? Your answer should

reference the four criteria discussed in class and each hypothesis should be discussed in terms of them. H1: McGraw stole the TV. H2: Kingston stole the TV. H3: Spies from a foreign country stole the TV, and they framed McGraw (forcing him to walk around Vogels house while she was on vacation and forcing him to touch her TV table). H4: McGraw and Kingston both stole the TV. H5: Ms. Vogel is faking the theft in order to collect money from her renters insurance policy. The first hypothesis is clearly the simplest. McGraws stealing the TV fits the facts and does so without requiring any substantially creative storytelling. Its consistent with what we already know about McGraws character--hes a thief--and doesnt introduce any new element that needs further justification. At base, it fits the facts best. Hypothesis 2 clearly fits our background information--Kingston is a thief also. However, it requires us to tell a separate, unrelated story about how McGraws fingerprints got into Ms. Vogels house. Thus, it is less simple than the first hypothesis and less internally coherent. The third hypothesis is ridiculous. It clearly fails simplicity. Also, we have no reason to think that spies would have any reason to want Ms. Vogels TV. The fourth hypothesis fits our background knowledge about both McGraw and Kingston. However, it suffers from an internal coherence problem. Why do we need both Kingston and McGraw to explain the disappearance of the TV? It was small enough for one person to carry and only one persons fingerprints were found at the scene. Finally, the fifth hypothesis fails both simplicity and fails to match what is already established--namely, Ms Vogel is not the thief in her neighborhood. Also, its an overly complicated story. The first hypothesis is the best. H. For each of the following passages, answer the following questions. What data are to be explained? What hypotheses are proposed to explain them? How do the hypotheses stand up under scrutiny from the 4 criteria we discussed in class (be specific and explain and justify your answer)? 1) Boy babies tend to be about 100 grams heavier on average than girl babies, but it has never been explained, until recently, why that is so. Investigators were unsure whether the increased weight was to be explained by the fact that mothers of boys took in more energy, or because (when the fetus was male) those mothers used the energy taken in more efficiently. Dr. Rulla M. Tamimi, of the Harvard School of Public Health, sought to resolve this uncertainty by measuring the intake of calories. During the second trimester of their pregnancy, 244 women in Boston were asked to record their dietary intake in full detail. The data collected were later correlated with the resultant births. Women carrying boys, Dr. Tamimi found, took in (as carbohydrates, fats, or proteins) about 10 percent more calories than women carrying girls. It is intake, and not efficiency of use, that makes the difference. But what accounts for that difference of intake? Dr. Tamimi speculated that it may be triggered by some signal from the testosterone given off by the fetuses. Data to be explained: Boy babies are heavier than girl babies. 5

Hypotheses: 1) Mothers of boys take in more energy; 2) mothers of boys use the energy taken in more efficiently; and 3) the increased food consumption is triggered in some way by the testosterone given off by the male fetus. The second hypothesis has a substantial confirming instance and thus gains a predictive edge on the unconfirmed first hypothesis. The third hypothesis requires testing and rivals need to be examined. 2) Humans, apes, and dolphins are highly social animals with large brains; they have been shown to be aware of themselves by recognizing themselves in a mirror. Most animals pay very little attention to their reflections in a mirror. Elephants are like humans in being large-brained and empathic, but they dont share a common ancestor with humans the way apes do. Might they also recognize an image of themselves? Yes, they do. Elephants at the Bronx Zoo, in New York City, inspected themselves with their trunks while staring at their reflections in a huge mirror. One of the elephants (but only one) completed the highest level of self-recognition, call the mark test. Researchers placed a white X above one eye of each elephant. After approaching the mirror, this elephant touched the mark with her trunk 12 times in 90 seconds--confirmation that she believed that what she saw in the mirror was indeed herself. [With this example, Im open to slightly different answers.] Data to be explained: 1) Some large-brained, social animals recognize themselves in a mirror; 2) an elephant touched a white X above her eye a substantial number of times will looking at her reflection in a mirror. Hypotheses: 1) Such animals are self-aware; 2) the elephant recognized the reflection as her own; 3) the elephant is self-aware. In terms of the elephant being self-aware, the hypothesis has limited predictive power, because only one of the elephants actually reached the highest level of self-recognition. The hypothesis that animals are self-aware generally doesnt really fit with our traditional view of the cognitive life of animals. The elephant recognizing her reflection as her own could be tested in other ways by making other marks on the elephant and observing whether she explored them using the mirror. So, its predictive power could certainly be tested. 3) Swedish researchers, collaborating with colleagues in South Africa, found that dung beetles active during the day detect polarity patterns in sunlight and rely on those patterns to find their way out of great masses of elephant dung. Dr. Marie Dacke, of the University of Lund, noticed subsequently that on moonlit nights one beetle species worked (rolling dung) particularly late. Could they have been relying upon the polarization of moonlight? Researchers set up polarizing filters to shift the moonbeams--and sure enough, the African beetle, Scarabaeus zambesianus changed direction to compensate. When the polarization of the moonlight under the filter was rotated by 90 degrees, they found that beetles under that filter deviated from their course by almost exactly 90 degrees. This is the first proof, writes Dr. Dacke in her report in Nature of 3 July 2003, that any animal can use polarized moonlight for orientation. Data to be explained: On moonlit nights, a certain species of dung beetle works late into the night.

Hypothesis: This species of beetle uses the polarization of moonlight to navigate the dung piles. This hypothesis is pretty successfully. Its predictive power is very strong. Changes in the polarization of the moonlight caused corresponding changes in the beetles movements. Furthermore, this change in movement precisely corresponded with the change in polarization. Additionally, this hypothesis jives with other well-established facts about the beetles--they use the polarization of sunlight to navigate as well.

You might also like