Exam 3: Evaluating Moral Arguments

The fallacy of straw man is rarely used in everyday debates about moral issues.

When dealing with a deductive argument form that you have never seen before,the best way to test its validity is to use the counterexample method.

Argumentation and persuasion are fundamentally the same thing.

Moral premises cannot be evaluated but must be either accepted or rejected.

The argument form called "denying the consequent" (or modus tollens)is:

To beg the question is to raise an issue not yet discussed.

An argument requires at least two statements,one of which provides a reason to believe the other.

In logic,a(n)___________ is an assertion that something is either true or false.

A valid deductive argument with true premises is said to be:

A strong inductive argument with true premises is said to be cogent.

An inductive argument that manages to give probable support to its conclusion is:

The argument form "If p,then q.If q,thenr.Therefore,if p,then r." is valid.

Any proposed implied premise should make the argument valid or strong and be:

A deductive argument may contain false premises and still be valid.

An appeal to ignorance consists of arguing that the absence of evidence entitles us to believe a claim.

In a typical moral argument,at least one premise must be a moral premise and:

Faulty analogy is the mistake of drawing a conclusion about an entire group of people or things based on an undersized sample of the group.

An inductive argument is intended to:

Equivocation is the assigning of two different meanings to the same term in an argument.

Slippery-slope arguments are never legitimate.