Question 1

In evaluating an argument by analogy, the only premise that needs to be evaluated for acceptability is the premise that claims the two actions are relevantly similar.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 2

A successful refutation by logical analogy must always explain exactly what's wrong with the arguments being compared.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 3

In DEFENSE OF DOPING, in Chapter 7, what is supposedly implied by the similarity between using performing-enhancing drugs in sports and hiring a better coach?

Accepted Answer

A)  That hiring a better coach is morally wrong. 
B)  That using performance-enhancing drugs is permissible. 
C)  That using performance-enhancing drugs is no worse than hiring a better coach. 
D)  That hiring a better coach is permissible, but using performance-enhancing drugs is not. 
A)  That hiring a better coach is morally wrong. 
B)  That using performance-enhancing drugs is permissible. 
C)  That using performance-enhancing drugs is no worse than hiring a better coach. 
D)  That hiring a better coach is permissible, but using performance-enhancing drugs is not.

Question 4

What is a legal precedent?

Accepted Answer

A)  A legal case that resembles another case that has already been decided by another court. 
B)  A legal case that imposes limits on how a court of law may rule on similar cases in the future. 
C)  A legal principle requiring courts to issue similar judgments in relevantly similar cases. 
D)  A feature of a legal case that justifies a judge in ruling differently in one case than in another. 
A)  A legal case that resembles another case that has already been decided by another court. 
B)  A legal case that imposes limits on how a court of law may rule on similar cases in the future. 
C)  A legal principle requiring courts to issue similar judgments in relevantly similar cases. 
D)  A feature of a legal case that justifies a judge in ruling differently in one case than in another.

Question 5

What makes a similarity or difference between two actions relevant for the purposes of a moral argument by analogy?

Accepted Answer

In a moral argument by analogy, the rele

Question 6

A legal precedent is a legal case that has already been decided that affects how judges may rule on relevantly similar cases in the future.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 7

In your own words, explain the DEFENSE OF DOPING argument from the beginning of Chapter 7. Do you think the argument is successful? Why or why not?

Accepted Answer

The defense of doping argument presented

Question 8

What is an argument by analogy?

Accepted Answer

A)  An argument that because two cases are exactly alike, we should make the same moral judgment about them. 
B)  An argument that although two cases aren't really alike, we should still make the same moral judgment about them. 
C)  An argument that because an action resembles the action that a virtuous person would do, it is a virtuous action. 
D)  An argument that because two things are similar in some ways, they are also similar in some further way. 
A)  An argument that because two cases are exactly alike, we should make the same moral judgment about them. 
B)  An argument that although two cases aren't really alike, we should still make the same moral judgment about them. 
C)  An argument that because an action resembles the action that a virtuous person would do, it is a virtuous action. 
D)  An argument that because two things are similar in some ways, they are also similar in some further way.

Question 9

The DEFENSE OF DOPING argument in Chapter 7 argues that because it is morally permissible for an athlete to hire a better coach and because hiring a better coach is relevantly similar to using performance-enhancing drugs, it is also morally permissible for an athlete to use performance-enhancing drugs.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 10

Because they rely on the ideas of consistency and hypocrisy, arguments by analogy are a form of reasoning using virtues and vices.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 11

Determining whether two actions are relevantly similar ultimately depends on a judgment call about the relative weight of the similarities and differences between the actions.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 12

An "evolving analogy," as explained in Chapter 7, is a fallacious kind of argument by analogy in which the arguer continually revises the analogy to avoid objections and counterexamples.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 13

In your own words, explain the idea of a legal precedent. How are legal precedents related to moral arguments by analogy?

Accepted Answer

A legal precedent is a previous court de

Question 14

Which of the following best captures Stewart Cameron and Raymond Hoffenberg's objection to DONOR RISK, which argued that it is morally wrong to sell one's kidney?

Accepted Answer

A)  DONOR RISKS focuses only on the financial gain from selling one's kidney, but ignores the similarities between selling one's kidney and donating one's time or services to help others. 
B)  DONOR RISK is relevantly similar to the clearly faulty argument that it's wrong to donate one's kidney because doing so leaves you at greater risk for illness or death. 
C)  DONOR RISK is relevantly similar to the clearly faulty argument that it's wrong to take a dangerous job, such as working in construction, because doing so involves risking death for financial reasons. 
D)  DONOR RISK is clearly faulty because it is morally permissible to donate your kidney to someone, and it's permissible to sell anything that it is permissible to give away for free. 
A)  DONOR RISKS focuses only on the financial gain from selling one's kidney, but ignores the similarities between selling one's kidney and donating one's time or services to help others. 
B)  DONOR RISK is relevantly similar to the clearly faulty argument that it's wrong to donate one's kidney because doing so leaves you at greater risk for illness or death. 
C)  DONOR RISK is relevantly similar to the clearly faulty argument that it's wrong to take a dangerous job, such as working in construction, because doing so involves risking death for financial reasons. 
D)  DONOR RISK is clearly faulty because it is morally permissible to donate your kidney to someone, and it's permissible to sell anything that it is permissible to give away for free.

Question 15

What is a refutation by logical analogy supposed to show?

Accepted Answer

A)  That an action is morally wrong because it closely resembles a different action that is clearly wrong. 
B)  That you should not accept an argument by analogy because you did not accept an identical argument about two different actions. 
C)  That an argument is flawed because it closely resembles a different argument that is clearly flawed. 
D)  That you should accept an argument by analogy because you accepted a similar argument about two different actions. 
A)  That an action is morally wrong because it closely resembles a different action that is clearly wrong. 
B)  That you should not accept an argument by analogy because you did not accept an identical argument about two different actions. 
C)  That an argument is flawed because it closely resembles a different argument that is clearly flawed. 
D)  That you should accept an argument by analogy because you accepted a similar argument about two different actions.

Question 16

For the purposes of an argument by analogy, there is no definitive way to show that the relevant similarities between two actions outweigh the relevant differences between them.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 17

The DEFENSE OF DOPING argument in Chapter 7 argues that using performing-enhancing drugs is permissible as long as it goes undetected because all sports involve some level of cheating.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 18

A moral argument by analogy argues that two actions are morally similar because they are relevantly similar in nonmoral ways.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 19

For the purposes of an argument by analogy, there is a clear algorithm for determining whether the relevant similarities between two actions outweigh the relevant differences between them.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

In evaluating an argument by analogy, the only premise that needs to be evaluated for acceptability is the premise that claims the two actions are relevantly similar.

A successful refutation by logical analogy must always explain exactly what's wrong with the arguments being compared.

In DEFENSE OF DOPING, in Chapter 7, what is supposedly implied by the similarity between using performing-enhancing drugs in sports and hiring a better coach?

What is a legal precedent?

What makes a similarity or difference between two actions relevant for the purposes of a moral argument by analogy?

A legal precedent is a legal case that has already been decided that affects how judges may rule on relevantly similar cases in the future.

In your own words, explain the DEFENSE OF DOPING argument from the beginning of Chapter 7. Do you think the argument is successful? Why or why not?

What is an argument by analogy?

Because they rely on the ideas of consistency and hypocrisy, arguments by analogy are a form of reasoning using virtues and vices.

Determining whether two actions are relevantly similar ultimately depends on a judgment call about the relative weight of the similarities and differences between the actions.

An "evolving analogy," as explained in Chapter 7, is a fallacious kind of argument by analogy in which the arguer continually revises the analogy to avoid objections and counterexamples.

In your own words, explain the idea of a legal precedent. How are legal precedents related to moral arguments by analogy?

Which of the following best captures Stewart Cameron and Raymond Hoffenberg's objection to DONOR RISK, which argued that it is morally wrong to sell one's kidney?

What is a refutation by logical analogy supposed to show?

For the purposes of an argument by analogy, there is no definitive way to show that the relevant similarities between two actions outweigh the relevant differences between them.

The DEFENSE OF DOPING argument in Chapter 7 argues that using performing-enhancing drugs is permissible as long as it goes undetected because all sports involve some level of cheating.

A moral argument by analogy argues that two actions are morally similar because they are relevantly similar in nonmoral ways.

For the purposes of an argument by analogy, there is a clear algorithm for determining whether the relevant similarities between two actions outweigh the relevant differences between them.

An Introduction to Arguments

Moral Arguments

Reasoning With Obligations

Reasoning About Consequences

Reasoning With Virtues and Vices

Reasoning With Principles and Counterexamples

Answering Moral Questions

Skepticism, Subjectivism, and Relativism

Religion and Moral Reasoning

Normative Theories, Part 1

Normative Theories, Part 2

Aristotle's Ethics: Exploring Virtue and Justice

Filters

Exam 7: Reasoning With Analogies

In evaluating an argument by analogy, the only premise that needs to be evaluated for acceptability is the premise that claims the two actions are relevantly similar.

A successful refutation by logical analogy must always explain exactly what's wrong with the arguments being compared.

In DEFENSE OF DOPING, in Chapter 7, what is supposedly implied by the similarity between using performing-enhancing drugs in sports and hiring a better coach?

What is a legal precedent?

What makes a similarity or difference between two actions relevant for the purposes of a moral argument by analogy?

A legal precedent is a legal case that has already been decided that affects how judges may rule on relevantly similar cases in the future.

In your own words, explain the DEFENSE OF DOPING argument from the beginning of Chapter 7. Do you think the argument is successful? Why or why not?

What is an argument by analogy?

Because they rely on the ideas of consistency and hypocrisy, arguments by analogy are a form of reasoning using virtues and vices.

Determining whether two actions are relevantly similar ultimately depends on a judgment call about the relative weight of the similarities and differences between the actions.

An "evolving analogy," as explained in Chapter 7, is a fallacious kind of argument by analogy in which the arguer continually revises the analogy to avoid objections and counterexamples.

In your own words, explain the idea of a legal precedent. How are legal precedents related to moral arguments by analogy?

Which of the following best captures Stewart Cameron and Raymond Hoffenberg's objection to DONOR RISK, which argued that it is morally wrong to sell one's kidney?

What is a refutation by logical analogy supposed to show?

For the purposes of an argument by analogy, there is no definitive way to show that the relevant similarities between two actions outweigh the relevant differences between them.

The DEFENSE OF DOPING argument in Chapter 7 argues that using performing-enhancing drugs is permissible as long as it goes undetected because all sports involve some level of cheating.

A moral argument by analogy argues that two actions are morally similar because they are relevantly similar in nonmoral ways.

For the purposes of an argument by analogy, there is a clear algorithm for determining whether the relevant similarities between two actions outweigh the relevant differences between them.

An Introduction to Arguments

Moral Arguments

Reasoning With Obligations

Reasoning About Consequences

Reasoning With Virtues and Vices

Reasoning With Principles and Counterexamples

Answering Moral Questions

Skepticism, Subjectivism, and Relativism

Religion and Moral Reasoning

Normative Theories, Part 1

Normative Theories, Part 2

Aristotle's Ethics: Exploring Virtue and Justice

Filters