This “mock test” is intended as a trial run in preparation for Test 1. This means that the wording of each question’s instructions is very close, if not identical, to what you will see on Test 1.
The questions that appear in this mock test will resemble the kinds of questions that will appear on Test 1 (except, of course, the number of questions in each section will be more than what you see here).
The purpose of this trial run is twofold: 1. to provide a glimpse of the organization/formatting of Test 1 so that students will have an idea of the “look” of the test (keeping in mind that the formatting will be slightly altered going from Word to “Blackboard-quiz” format); 2. to provide some extra practice on non-arguments and deductive arguments (validity & soundness).
Your task is to answer the questions as you would if this was an actual test. Have your answers ready for next week’s tutorial during which we will go over the answers and address any questions.
Yellow highlighted text will not appear on Test 1. These memos offer hints/suggestions for answering the questions.
Read the instructions and passages CAREFULLY.
1. Determine whether the following passage is an argument or non-argument. If it’s an argument, explain what makes it an argument. If it’s not an argument, identify which kind (explanation, conditional statement, unsupported assertion) and explain why it’s not an argument by blending details and concepts. Answer in complete sentences. [3 marks]
2. Determine whether the following passage is an argument or non-argument. If it’s an argument, explain what makes it an argument. If it’s not an argument, identify which kind (explanation, conditional statement, unsupported assertion) and explain why it’s not an argument by blending details and concepts. Answer in complete sentences. [3 marks]
3. Determine whether the following passage is an argument or non-argument. If it’s an argument, explain what makes it an argument. If it’s not an argument, identify which kind (explanation, conditional statement, unsupported assertion) and explain why it’s not an argument by blending details and concepts. Answer in complete sentences. [3 marks]
4. Determine whether the following passage is an argument or non-argument. If it’s an argument, explain what makes it an argument. If it’s not an argument, identify which kind (explanation, conditional statement, unsupported assertion) and explain why it’s not an argument by blending details and concepts. Answer in complete sentences. [3 marks]
5. Determine whether the following passage is an argument or non-argument. If it’s an argument, explain what makes it an argument. If it’s not an argument, identify which kind (explanation, conditional statement, unsupported assertion) and explain why it’s not an argument by blending details and concepts. Answer in complete sentences. [3 marks
6. For the following deductive argument, indicate whether it is valid or invalid. Explain WHY it’s valid/invalid – by blending concepts of deductive logic (e.g. deductive pattern if applicable) and details from the passage. Answer in complete sentences. [3 marks]
7. For the following deductive argument, indicate whether it is valid or invalid. Explain WHY it’s valid/invalid – by blending concepts (e.g. deductive pattern if applicable) and details from the passage. Answer in complete sentences. [3 marks]
8. For the following deductive argument, indicate whether it is valid or invalid. Explain WHY it’s valid/invalid – by blending concepts (e.g. deductive pattern if applicable) and details from the passage. Answer in complete sentences. [3 marks]
9. The conclusion of a valid argument in the form of modus tollens that has as its first premise “Thales started everything if the presocratics were the first scientists” is
a. Thales did start everything.
b. The presocratics were not the first scientists.
c. Thales did not start everything.
d. The presocratics were the first scientists.
10. Which is the missing premise of the following chain argument?
P1: If we’re going to leave, we’re leaving before noon.
P2: ?
—————————–
If we’re going to leave, we’d better grab some lunch.
a. If we’re going to leave, we’d better not grab lunch.
b. If we’re not going to leave, we’re not grabbing lunch.
c. If we’re grabbing some lunch, we’re leaving before noon.
d. If we’re leaving before noon, we’d better grab some lunch.
11. The United States will need to re-think their Homeland Security strategy in light of the Biden administration.
The above passage is
a. an explanation
b. an argument
c. an unsupported assertion
d. a conditional statement
12. We should never take our friends for granted. True friends are there when you need them. They suffer with us when we fail, and they are happy when we succeed.
The above passage is
a. an explanation
b. an argument
c. an unsupported assertion
d. a conditional statement
13. We’re not in Berlin, given that if we are in Berlin, then we are in Germany, and we are not in Germany.
The above argument displays which pattern?
a. modus tollens
b. denying the antecedent
c. hypothetical syllogism/chain argument
d. affirming the consequent
e. disjunctive syllogism
14. Either the Romulans will attack the station and severely weaken our defenses in this sector, or the Klingons will join us and repel the attack. But the Klingons will not help us out. Hence, the Romulans will attack the station and severely weaken our defenses in this sector.
a. modus tollens
b. disjunctive syllogism
c. modus ponens
d. conjunction
e. affirming the consequent
15. I will admit that I love you, too if you love me; for if you love me, you would say so. And if you say you love me, then I will admit that I love you, too.
The above argument displays which pattern?
a. chain argument
b. denying the antecedent
c. simplification
d. affirming the consequent
e. disjunctive syllogism
16. Whales do not have fur, and whales are mammals. So, not all mammals have fur.
The above argument is
a. valid but unsound
b. invalid and unsound
c. valid and sound
d. invalid and sound
17. All cats are purple. And everything that is purple is a person. Therefore, all cats are people.
valid or invalid _________________________
sound or unsound ______________________
18. Determine whether the following argument is sound or unsound. Explain your answer by blending concepts and details from the passage. [2 marks each]
19. Determine whether the following argument is sound or unsound. Explain your answer by blending concepts and details from the passage. [2 marks each]
20. According to the correspondence theory of truth
a. a statement is true iff it coheres with other statements.
b. a statement is false iff it fails to cohere with other statements.
c. a statement is true if it represents the facts.
d. a statement is false if it fails to represent the facts.
e. Both c and d
21. According to Hughes/Lavery, the coherence theory of truth
a. is more appropriate for assessing empirical truth claims.
b. is more appropriate for assessing non-empirical truth claims
c. is appropriate for assessing both empirical and non-empirical truth claims.
d. is inappropriate for assessing both empirical and non-empirical truth claims.
