Unit 2 Term Assessment – Metaphysics
Arguing Philosophically
Name:
Broad Requirements:
To be able to recognise, assess and construct arguments in topics of meaning, identity, existence and reality
Part 1 – Recognising arguments (C)
Prior to starting you may want to collect arguments (and their references) as you come across them in
your day to day lives. Not all arguments that you recognise will be suitable for analysis in Part 2 so it is a
good idea to collect more than you need to work with so that you can choose the most suitable ones.
Choose 3 pieces of stimulus material that contain an argument. Each argument needs to be from a
different source such as a primary philosophical text, TV script, lyric, blog, TV commercial, conversation
you had/overheard, political speech, workshop presentation, sales pitch, essay, or any other suitable
source. At least 2 of the arguments must be metaphysical in nature. Provide a copy of each argument on
your Wiki and identify the following elements within it:
Premise(s), Conclusion, Inferences, Assumption(s), Fallacie(s), Examples and counter examples,
Key questions, Dichotomies
Part 1 – Recognising arguments Log
Stimulus 1
Stimulus 2
Stimulus 3
Sources
Premises
Conclusion
Inference
Assumptions
Fallacies
Examples/
Counter egs
Key questions
Dichotomies
Part 2 – Assessing a Metaphysical argument (B)
Choose one of your two metaphysical arguments recognised in Part 1 and asses its validity by
responding to the following:
1. Identify if the writer has used deductive or inductive logic.
2. Present the argument (or an argument) from your chosen material in its standard format (by
writing out the premises and conclusion).
3. Is the argument valid and true? (see table below to show that these can be mutually exclusive)
Assessing validity and truth in an argument
Argument
Valid?
All pigs can fly. Anything that can fly can swim. So all pigs can
swim.
Adam loves Beth. Beth loves Cathy. So Adam loves Cathy.
All pigs are purple in colour. Anything that is purple is an
animal. So all pigs are animals.
Yes
Premise
true?
No
Conclusion
True?
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
4. Map the valid and true arguments.
5. Identify any obvious or hidden assumptions.
6. Do you agree or disagree with the argument? Provide examples and/or counter examples to
engage with the argument.
Part 2 – Assessing an argument Log
Stimulus chosen to assess:
Type of logic
Written in standard format
Argument valid
Argument true
Map
Hidden assumptions identified
Agree/disagree
Examples/counter examples
Part 3 – Constructing your own Metaphysical argument (A)
1. Choose a question or subtopic in metaphysics that has interested you.
2. Investigate this topic using one of the questioning techniques applied in your first assessment.
3. Choose a focus question to ‘argue’ and suggest a response, supporting this question with a
reason.
4. Using a flow chart similar to the one in Rationale, map the development of your argument with
examples and counter examples.
5. Include premises and a conclusion.
Part 3 – Constructing an argument Log
Metaphysical topic identified
Questioning applied
Focus question identified
Reason(s) given for response to question
Examples and counter examples used
Argument mapped
Premise and conclusion