Schoolcraft College
Philosophy 247: Logic
Study Guide: Exam #1
The exam will be divided into four parts, each worth 30 points, for a total of 120 points. The four parts of
the exam are as follows:
Part #1: Definitions of Concepts and Terms
Below is a list of 36 terms covered in this class so far. On the exam, from the list below, you will be given
20 of these terms. You will need to offer a thorough, articulate and accurate definition of the term,
including any additional clarification that may be needed to distinguish between different types of the
same thing. For example, if you are given "Ad Hominem" on the exam, you must be sure to include the
difference between Ad Hominem Abusive, Ad Hominem Circumstantial and Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.
Definitions should correspond in length to the amount you need to define the term; the definition of the
simple term "Argument," e.g., is going to be much shorter than a definition for Weak Induction. For the
terms "Noninferential Passage," "Informal Fallacy" and "Weak Induction," you need to give a general
definition and name a couple examples. (You will not need to define these examples, unless given them
as a separate definition choice. Just show me that you know not only the definition, but which things
below to which term.)
Of the 20 terms you are given, you must define 10 of them, worth 3 points each, for a total of 30 points.
Argument
Syllogistic Logic
Noninferential Passage
Deductive Argument
Inductive Argument
Valid argument
Sound Argument
Unspoken Premise
Formal Fallacy
Informal Fallacy
Appeal to Force
Appeal to Pity
Appeal to the People
Appeal to Vanity/Snobbery
Accident
Straw Man
Missing the Point
Appeal to Unqualified Authority
Ad Hominem
Red Herring
Weak Induction
Appeal to Ignorance
Slippery Slope
Weak Analogy
False Dichotomy
Suppressed Evidence
Fallacy of Composition
Bandwagon Argument
Relevance
Hasty Generalization
Begging the Question
Equivocation
Fallacy of Division
False Cause
Complex Question
Amphiboly
Part #2: Identifying Arguments
Part 2 is split into two sections:
In section A, you will be given a list of 15 brief passages, ranging in length from one to three sentences.
From this list of 15, you will choose 5. For those you choose, you will need to say whether or not it
qualifies as an argument. If it DOES qualify as an argument, you must indicate the conclusion. If it is NOT
an argument, you must indicate which type of noninferential passage it is. (You will NOT need to define
the noninferential passage; you simply must indicate the correct one.)
In Section B, you will be given a list of 15 brief passages, ranging in length from one to three sentences.
From this list of 15, you will choose 5. For those you choose, you must say whether the argument is
deductive or inductive, and give the type of deductive or inductive argument being used (e.g. "Deductive:
Hypothetical Syllogism" or "Inductive: Argument from Authority"). You will NOT need to define the
argument you choose; you must simply indicate the correct one.
Each answer you give for both Sections A and B is worth 3 points. Each Section is worth 15 total points,
for a total of 30 points.
NOTE: All of the potential passages you will be given on the exam will come from the following lists:
Section A: Exercise 1.2, part I. (pg 25-29)
Section B: Exercise 1.3, part I. (pg 40-43)
YOU WILL TURN IN PARTS 1 and 2 together, and then be issued Parts 3 and 4
Part #3: Fallacies of Relevance
You will be given a paragraph of my construction, similar in principle to the exercise titled "Fallacy Cafe"
on pg 136-139. You will need to indicate 5 different examples of a Fallacy of Relevance from the options
defined on pg122-132. You will do so by writing the name of the fallacy you are citing, writing a brief
explanation for your answer, and circling the exact text in the story that you are using.
E.g, on the bottom of pg 136, you would cite the fallacy "Accident" and then write that this is a fallacy
because a general rule (The First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression) is being improperly
applied to a specific instance (claiming that sexual harassment is one mode of expression the
Amendment was meant to cover); then, you will circle the text so as to include all of the information
relevant to your chosen fallacy. Thus, in addition to "Accident" and the explanation, you would have to
circle ALL of the following sentences:
The truckers have Playboy centerfolds tacked up all over the place, they constantly leer at her, they're
always asking her for dates. One of them even pats her rear when she leans over at the drinking
fountain. Frank laughs. 'Well, there is such a thing as the First Amendment, which supposedly
guarantees freedom of expression. You wouldn't want to deny these guys their freedom of expression,
would you?'
You would have to circle ALL of these sentences because, in order to show that this is a fallacy of
Accident, you need to provide evidence not only for the general rule being applied (First Amendment
rights) but also the specific incidences to which it is being erroneously applied (sexual harassment).
Each example you indicate is worth 6 points, for a total of 30 points.
Part #4: Fallacies of Weak Induction, Presumption, Ambiguity and Grammatical Analogy
You will be given a paragraph of my construction, similar in principle to the exercises titled "The Alien
Hypothesis" on pg 154-156, and "Law and Disorder" on pg 176-178. This paragraph will contain
examples of the Fallacies of Weak Induction (pg 138-149) AND Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity and
Grammatical Analogy (pg 156-170). You will need to indicate 4 Fallacies of Weak Induction, and 4
Fallacies of Presumption/Ambiguity/Grammatical Analogy. On your exam, you will indicate which type of
fallacy category you are referencing as follows, for example:
WI--Slippery Slope for "Weak Induction: Slippery Slope"
PAG--Division for "Presumption, Ambiguity or Grammatical Analogy: Division
Like you did in Part #3, you must answer Part #4 by indicating the fallacy, explaining your answer, and
circling the exact text that applies to your explanation.
There are 8 total answers to this section. This section is worth 30 points, and each answer is worth four
points. Thus, a perfect score nets you 2 bonus points on this section.
Time Management
You will be given exactly 110 minutes of in-class time to complete the exam. This time will run exactly
from 11 am to 12.50 pm for the T/R exam, and 9 am to 10.50 am for the F class. If you are late, you do
not get extra time to compensation, and NO TIME EXTENSIONS WILL BE GIVEN. No student is permitted
to show up early to get extra time to complete the exam. It is important to schedule your time during
the exam not only according to your strengths, but also according to the corresponding effort and
thoroughness each section will require. E.g., Part #1 is naturally less time-consuming than Part #4.If you
take the entire 110 minutes to complete this exam, a recommended time management strategy may
look like this:
Part #1:
Part #2:
Part #3:
Part #4:
TOTAL
10 definitions
5 questions (Section A)
5 questions (Section B)
5 fallacies
4 WI fallacies
4 PAG fallacies
2 min each
3 min each
20 min total
30 min total
4 min each
5 min each
20 min total
40 min total
110 min total
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
There is an opportunity for extra credit outside of Part #4 on this exam.
In Part #1, you may define up to 5 extra terms, at 1 bonus point per term, for a maximum of 5 bonus
points. In Part #2, you may answer up to 5 extra questions, at 1 bonus point per question, for a
maximum of 5 bonus points. In Part #3, you may offer up to 3 extra fallacies, at 3 bonus points per
answer, for a maximum of 9 bonus points. In Part #4, you may offer up to 3 extra fallacies, at 2 bonus
points per answer. In addition to this, a perfect score in Part #4 naturally nets an additional 2 bonus
points, for an overall total of 8 bonus points. Answer requirements on all extra credits are the same as
those requirements that pertain to the questions for that Part of the exam.
EXAM #1 SCORING BREAKDOWN
Part #1:
30 points
Part #2:
30 points
Part #3:
30 points
Part #4:
30 points
EXAM:
120 points
Extra Credit:
up to 27 points
Possible Score:
147/120
A NOTE ABOUT EXTRA CREDIT ON THIS EXAM:
The goal of offering extra credit is to reward you for the comfort level you have on particular parts of
the material. For those parts of the material that you understand very well, it makes sense to give you
the chance to show that. HOWEVER, I will not let this system be abused; meaning, you cannot spend all
your time shooting for the extra credit on Part #1 and #2, e.g., to compensate for simply not wanting to
answer questions from another section. Extra credit is there to reward you, not enable laziness. To this
end, you must earn at least 50% on EACH PART of the exam in order to received ANY of the extra credit.
This is still to your benefit; for example, assume you don't do so well on the exam overall--perhaps
80/120 points, a 66.7% (D/1.7 GPA). you do fairly well with the extra effort you put in--say, 20/27 points.
This moves your grade to 100/120 points, a 83.3% (B/3.3 GPA). I consider the potential to raise a sour
grade two full letter grades a pretty good deal.
FURTHER: In each section, you must clearly indicate which answers are being submitted for required
credit, and which are being submitted for extra credit. You must CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY indicate
which are which. If you do not, I will take the first ones you give, and award no extra credit for the rest.
And no, I will not take your "best" answers in each Part as those submitted for credit, and leave the rest
as extra credit. It's up to you decide your level of confidence on each Part of the exam and indicate your
answers accordingly. And finally, whether it is the definitions or your explanations, be clear, concise and
direct with your answers. If you give a rambling, 5 sentence long definition for "Valid Argument," I'll
assume you're just writing word barf on the page and hoping you run into enough to get the point
across. No, no and no. Desperation masquerading as thoroughness does not equal understanding.