logic and critical thinking chapter 3 pdf

Logical Reasoning

Bradley H. Dowden, California State University Sacramento

Copyright Year: 2017

Publisher: Bradley H. Dowden

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Matt Carlson, Assistant Professor, Wabash College on 8/6/19

This book takes a "kitchen sink" approach to the material that might be taught in a standard critical thinking course. There is far more material here than could be taught in one semester. The good news, though, is that the chapters are, for the... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

This book takes a "kitchen sink" approach to the material that might be taught in a standard critical thinking course. There is far more material here than could be taught in one semester. The good news, though, is that the chapters are, for the most part, independent of one another, so the book could be used in a relatively modular way.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

Generally good, but I found the use of 'logic' and its cognates to be a little confusing at times. If anything, this book is really about applied epistemology more than logic. That by itself isn't a criticism; it should just be called what it is. But this does introduce some problems in the sections more specifically about logic. The definition of deductive validity and implication, for example, are given in terms of certainty. The author warns against interpreting 'certainty' psychologically, but gives no clue as how to how it might be meant in a logical sense. It follows from this definition that it is possible to have P,Q such that Q "follows from P with certainty" but Q is not certain. I know what is meant by this because I already have background in logic, but I think students will be confused.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

A bit of a mixed bag here. I really liked the added section on "Fake News and Misinformation". I haven't seen that in a critical thinking book before, and I thought it was a valuable addition that was clearly informed by current research. I would have appreciated more guidance as to how to judge whether a source is reliable. Of course this is a hard problem (see Goldman's classic "Experts" paper), but the book just gave us a short list of reliable sources. Surely critical thinkers will ask: "But why are *those* sources reliable?"

Clarity rating: 3

The book is generally readable. But it introduces many, many distinctions and new pieces of terminology. Almost all of them are briefly explained when they are introduced, but the sheer number of terms and distinctions is difficult to keep track of. I found this to be a problem in the exercises in particular. Many of the exercises require students to employ the fine distinctions given in the text, but they haven't really been given much guidance (typically, just one example per term is given) as to how to apply those distinctions. As these are a little idiosyncratic in places, I admit that I sometimes had a hard time discerning what the intended "right answer" was supposed to be.

Consistency rating: 4

The book is generally consistent, or at least as consistent as it can be given the "kitchen-sink" approach to content that it employs.

Modularity rating: 5

See above remarks. One virtue of this text is its modularity.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

Generally good, though I found it a little strange that topics in logic (e.g. deductive validity) were briefly introduced early on, and then discussed in much more detail only in later chapters.

Interface rating: 5

Generally good.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

I appreciated the wide variety of examples given.

As I said above, I think 'logical' in the title, "Logical Reasoning" is a misnomer. This is, for the most part, a book in applied epistemology and philosophy of science. And I think it generally does well in those areas. If one wants a book in logic, there are better open access choices; specifically works in the Open Logic Project, which I cannot recommend highly enough.

On an unrelated note, I found the sections on inductive reasoning somewhat confusing. I'm not sure how helpful it is to discuss inductive/statistical reasoning without requiring the student to do any mathematics. I suppose it is helpful for the student to be aware of pitfalls in statistical reasoning---and the book is helpful here---but students reading this book would have a hard time applying what that they learned about e.g. statistical significance to new cases, I think.

Table of Contents

• Chapter 1 How to Reason Logically
• Chapter 2 Claims, Issues, and Arguments
• Chapter 3 Writing with the Appropriate Precision
• Chapter 4 How to Evaluate Information and Judge Credibility
• Chapter 5 Obstacles to Better Communication
• Chapter 6 Writing to Convince Others
• Chapter 7 Defending Against Deception
• Chapter 8 Detecting Fallacies
• Chapter 9 Consistency and Inconsistency
• Chapter 10 Deductive Reasoning
• Chapter 11 Logical Form and Sentential Logic
• Chapter 12 Aristotelian Logic and Venn-Euler Diagrams
• Chapter 13 Inductive Reasoning
• Chapter 14 Reasoning about Causes and Their Effects
• Chapter 15 Scientific Reasoning

Ancillary Material

About the book.

The goal of this book is to improve your logical-reasoning skills. These skills are also called "critical thinking skills." They are a complex weave of abilities that help you get someone's point, generate reasons for your own point, evaluate the reasons given by others, decide what or what not to do, decide what information to accept or reject, explain a complicated idea, apply conscious quality control as you think, and resist propaganda. Your most important critical thinking skill is your skill at making judgments─not snap judgments that occur in the blink of an eye, but those that require careful reasoning.

This book is also available as an adaptable Word file .

About the Contributors

Contribute to this page.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Freshman course logic and critical thinking

2021, Ethiopian freshman course logic course

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND HIGHER EDUCATION LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING COURSE CODE: PHIL 1011

Related Papers

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Jamie C Watson

Christoph Lumer

This contribution gives an overview of the epistemological approach to argumentation. It explains what an 'epistemological approach to argumentation' is, and justifies this approach as being better than a rhetorical or a consensualist approach. It systemizes the main directions and theories within the epistemological approach according to their criteria for good argumentation. It presents contributions by epistemological argumentation theorists to major topics of argumentation theory. Finally, it introduces the articles of the two special issues of "Informal Logic" about the epistemological approach to argumentation.

Julian Fernando Trujillo Amaya

George Boger

Argumentation

claudia cuadro

Informal Logic, 30(2), 2010, 159-184.

Douglas Walton

This paper explains how a fallacious argument can be deceptive by appearing to be a better argument of its kind than it really is. The explanation combines heuristics and argumentation schemes. Heuristics are fast and frugal shortcuts to a solution to a problem. They are reasonable to use, but sometimes jump to a conclusion that is not justified. In fallacious instances, according to the theory proposed, such a jump overlooks prerequisites of the defeasible argumentation scheme for the type of argument in question.

RELATED PAPERS

David Botting

Godden, D. and Zenker, F. (2015). Denying antecedents and affirming consequents: The state of the art. Informal Logic: Reasoning and Argumentation in Theory and Practice, 35, 88-134.

David Godden , Frank Zenker

Martin Hinton

Daniel L Robb

Logique & Analyse, Vol. 129-130, 1990. pp. 113-154.

INFORMAL LOGIC-WINDSOR ONTARIO-

Argumentation, Vol. 13, 1999. pp. 161-182.

Informal Logic

Godden, D. and Walton, D. (2004). Denying the antecedent as a legitimate argumentative strategy: A dialectical model. Informal Logic: Reasoning and Argumentation in Theory and Practice, 24, 219-243.

David Godden , Douglas Walton

Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 2006, 745-777.

Ulrich de Balbian

Jim Mackenzie

Jean H.M. Wagemans

Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, ed. Iyad Rahwan and Guillermo Simari,Berlin, Springer, 2009, 1-24.

Adam Corner

Charlene Tan

Edwin Brandon

Logic Journal of the IGPL (Interest Group on Pure and Applied Logic), vol. 5, 1997. pp. 603-614.

Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 73, 1998. pp. 711-735.

Argument and Computation, 5(2-3), 2014, 139-159.

Journal of Applied Logic, 6, 2008, 361-379.

Reasoning and Public Health

Louise Cummings

Dr. S. Lourdu nathan

Rhetoric and Argumentation in the Beginning of the XXIst Century, ed Henrique Jales Ribeiro,University of Coimbra Press, Coimbra, Portugal, 2009, 87-109.

Matheus Silva

Macagno, F. & Walton, D. (2017). Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation. The pragmatics of Quotation and Reporting. Amsterdam: Springer. ISBN: 978-3-319-62544-7.

FABRIZIO MACAGNO , Douglas Walton

Juho Ritola

International Commentary on Evidence

Tamkeen Shah

Open textbook

Matthew Van Cleave

Rethinking the BSE Crisis

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

3.E: Chapter Three (Exercises)

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 223821

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

How can I tell one from the other?

• The objection is that the inference itself is incomplete or weak or invalid or simply doesn’t make any sense.
• An objection to a hidden premise is actually an objection to an inference: you’re claiming that the inference rests on a weak hidden premise and so is an incomplete inference.
• The objection is that some particular claim is false or at least is likely or plausibly false.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\): Conjoint vs Independent Support

For each, determine whether the support offered by the premises is conjoint or independent. Deploy the negative test when you’re unsure.

A. Eating healthy food is important and Figs are super healthy, so we should eat more figs.

B. I have to have a steady income to support my family, I already have a stable job, and grad school would require me to quit my job, so I shouldn’t go to grad school.

C. All of the nurses have gone on the strike, the custodial staff is threatening the same, and the doctors are demanding better legal support. This hospital is in trouble right now.

D. He is ten years younger than you and no one should date anyone ten years younger, so you can’t date him!

E. An ergonomic desk can prevent permanent injury, is more comfortable to use, and is cost-effective, so can I please buy one for my office?

F. A robust economic recovery will require higher taxes on the wealthy, and we need to have a strong recovery to prevent melt downs in the near future, so we must raise taxes on the wealthy.

G. We’ve always been honest with each other and the honest thing to do right now is to tell you that that outfit is terrible, so I need to tell you the truth about that outfit.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{2}\): Terminology

Fill in the blank labels using one of each of the following key terms: (A) Sub-Conclusion, (B) Sub-Premise, (C) Main Premise, (D) A premise on level 4 of the argument map, (E) A premise on level 2 of the argument map, (F) Conjoint Premise, (G) Independent Premise.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{3}\): Simple Argument Maps

For each, create an argument map. Be sure to distinguish between conjoint and independent support.

A. (1) Eating healthy food is the most effective weight-loss strategy, since (2) the amount of calories one takes in while eating even small snacks takes a long time to burn off by exercising, and (3) almost no one can afford to spend hours and hours exercising throughout the day.

B. (1) We’ve been out here in the sun all day, and (2) being in the sun for too long is unhealthy, so (3) let’s go inside.

C. (1) He’s so popular. (2) Everyone wanted to be invited to his birthday party and (3) he had five people invite him to the dance.

D. (1) We should ban all guns. (2) Guns are especially effective killing machines for mass killings. Also, (3) children often have fatal accidents with guns. Furthermore, (4) guns don’t have a non-violent use.

E. (1) Having intercourse before 18 is wrong because, (2) you are not emotionally mature enough to deal with the awkwardness and intimacy of the situation, and (3) you are not mature enough to deal with the potential consequences of the situation (pregnancy or STIs).

F. (1) Treating others with respect is important, so (2) we should all respect each other, and (3) we should try to teach our children to respect others.

G. (1) Oreos aren’t healthy, since (2) Nabisco products generally aren’t healthy. Think about it: (3) Pringles aren’t healthy, (4) Pop Tarts aren’t healthy, and (5) neither are Chips Ahoy.

H. (1) People are starting not to like you. (2) Tina said she wasn’t your friend anymore, (3) Beto said he doesn’t like you, and (4) I certainly don’t want to be around you.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{4}\): More Complex Argument Maps

A. (1) I know that Sally went to the park with Billy because (2) Sally said she’d go with him if he asked, and (3) Billy likes Sally (so he wouldn’t ask her as a prank) and (4) Billy asked Sally to go to the park.

B. (1) Eating any meat is wrong because, (2) most meat is produced in factory farms, (3) animals in factory farms suffer greatly, and (4) even ‘free range’ and ‘organic’ meat causes animal suffering.

C. (1) We already have almost all of the technology needed to clone dinosaurs and (2) human beings tend to do whatever they find they can do. (3) So, killer dinosaurs will roam the Earth one day. And since this is true, we can expect two things: (4) an armed response leading to the loss of innocent life, and (5) movie producers trying to buy the rights to the story.

D. (1) Burning fossil fuels like petrol, coal, and natural gas contributes to global warming. (2) According to experts, the combustion reaction releases free molecules of CO 2 into the atmosphere, and (3) Scientists wouldn’t lie about this. Think about it: (4) there’s no profit incentive for scientists to lie about this, but (5) there is a profit motive for other people to deny that it is true.

E. The Republicans have argued repeatedly that (1) the Affordable Care Act is in a death spiral. Because, they say, (2) premiums are getting higher, and (3) as premiums get higher, the people will stop purchasing policies and (4) if the people stop purchasing policies, then the insurance companies will pull out of the exchanges, and (5) if that happens, then the whole system collapses.

F. (1) We need to protect the environment, since (2) biodiversity is necessary to protect future food sources and (3) biodiversity is sustainable only in a relatively healthy global environment. Furthermore, (4) We take great pleasure in the natural wonders that the Earth has to offer (5) [suppressed premise]

Exercise \(\PageIndex{5}\): Even More Complex Argument Maps

A. (1) We need to buy a new trampoline, since (2) our son almost hurt himself really badly when this one broke last week, and (3) I don’t want to risk it again. (4) Even if you’re able to fix it, there’s no guarantee that it will be as safe as a new one. Think about it: (5) older trampolines like ours don’t have a net around them, and (6) the net makes it less likely that a kid will bounce off onto the ground and hurt themselves. Finally, (7) older trampolines like ours don’t have good spring covers, and (8) without spring covers, the risk of pinching oneself or falling through the springs and breaking a limb are very high.

B. (1) Eating kale is sometimes unsatisfying, but the fact is that (2) Kale has countless health benefits. (3) It is rich in folate and (4) folate helps guard against bad epigenetic changes. (5) It has more minerals and vitamins than most meat sources and (6) vitamins and minerals got from whole food sources are better than those got from multivitamins and other supplements since (7) whole foods contain more bioavailable forms of vitamins and minerals.

C. (1) We’ve already been in Afghanistan for over a decade and (2) no other American war has lasted this long, so (3) Afghanistan is the longest running American war. (4) We’ve shown little sign of progress in the past few years, and (5) we’ve sunk countless dollars into Afghan infrastructure and security projects with little to show for it. Given all of this, (6) we should pull out of Afghanistan and (7) we should divest interest in the Afghan society. (8) Since we’ve already tried so hard to fix it, (9) we should let them try to solve their own problems!

D. (1) Epigenetics is the most important frontier in genetic research. (2) Countless traits and processes depend not on genetic changes, but on epigenetic changes, (3) epigenetic changes are easier to induce through therapies, chemicals, and other interventions in a clinical setting, and (4) we already know the basic rules of genetics, but are far behind in our understanding of epigenetics. Given all that, it follows that (5) we should shift the balance of funding in favor of epigenetic research and (6) we should fund more PhD’s in epigenetics as well.

E. (1) We should put more direct emphasis in school and college on thinking clearly and critically. (2) The most important skill in life is thinking well. I think this because (3) other important skills like decision making and communication rely centrally on thinking well, and (4) a good citizen, employee, and overall person is one who can think clearly and rationally. (5) Citizens must weigh complex values in voting on candidates and referenda, (6) employees must make decisions in the workplace based on complex policies and competing needs, and (7) people in general need to have habits of self-critical and careful thinking in order to live good lives.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{6}\): Hidden Assumptions

For each inference, identify the most direct hidden assumption.

A. Moby Dick is a whale. So Moby Dick is a mammal.

B. Giving students a fail grade will damage their self-confidence. Therefore, we should not fail students.

C. It should not be illegal for adults to smoke pot. After all, it does not harm anyone.

D. There is nothing wrong with texting during lectures. Other students do it all the time.

E. Traces of ammonia have been found in Mars' atmosphere. So there must be life on Mars.

F. I don't like people who spit on the sidewalk, so littering should be illegal.

G. No one even cares what you think, so what you think isn't important.

H. Americans believe in freedom, so any law that restricts our freedom should be abolished.

I. Trees are beautiful, so we should plant more of them.

J. Carbon emissions contribute to global warming, so we should tax them.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{7}\): Mapping Hidden Assumptions

For each inference, identify the hidden assumption and then create a map of the inference including the hidden assumption.

A. The truth is, (1) we can’t vote for the Republican candidate. (2) She doesn’t believe in global warming.

B. (1) Nobody has ever been there and come back, and (2) I have children, so (3) I’m not going.

C. (1) Freedom isn’t free. (2) So, someone has to pay the price for freedom. (3) The way people pay the price of freedom is by serving in the armed forces. (4) So we should institute a draft. [at least two hidden assumptions]

D. (1) Nobody has ever seen a dinosaur, so (3) dinosaurs don’t exist.

E. (1) We should reduce the penalty for drunken driving, as (2) a milder penalty would mean more convictions. (3) The only way to reduce the penalty is to elect more liberal judges and prosecutors, so (4) we should elect liberal judges and prosecutors.

F. (1) Never again should we bow to tyrants, because (2) tyranny has been the mark of rule throughout human history, (3) as has cruelty and abject want. It follows that (4) we must rebel against the Imperial rule of England.

G. (1) Only real marriages should be recognized by the state, so (2) polygamist marriages shouldn't be recognized by the state. (3) Any marriage not recognized by the state should be illegal. So (4) polygamist marriages should be illegal. (5) Another reason they should be illegal is that, polygamist marriages often result in abusive situations. [the hidden assumption is between 1 and 2]

H. (1) No one believes in Odin anymore, so (2) why should anyone believe in God? [this is a rhetorical question, which is a claim that is disguised as a question. The claim appears to be "no one should believe in God”]. (3) If no one should rationally believe in something, then we should actively fight against belief in it. It follows that (4) we should actively fight against belied in the existence of God. (5) A world without believers would be a better world to live in. [the hidden assumption is between 1 and 2]

I. (1) We can't let terrorists live here with us in Pakistan, so (2) we should expel all Christians from our country. (3) Christians also don't contribute to the economy and (4) could potentially be spies for the Americans. [Where's the most blatant hidden assumption? There are more than one, but one in particular is relatively clearly a missing assumption of the argument]

Exercise \(\PageIndex{8}\): Identifying Types of Objections

Identify which type of objection is illustrated: an objection to a premise or an objection to an inference (including pointing out that there’s a hidden premise and/or rejecting a hidden premise)?

A. I agree with your conclusion, but it doesn’t follow from your assumptions.

B. Interesting argument, but what I don’t understand is your claim that every case of tyranny is a case of injustice. That doesn’t seem quite right.

C. You claim that there isn’t a threat to the Amazon. On the contrary, there are countless threats, one of which is people claiming that there isn’t a threat to the Amazon!

D. So if I accept all of your assumptions, it doesn’t seem to me that I must accept your conclusion.

E. If I have it right, it seems to me that your inference rests on a hidden assumption that we ought to do whatever is in our national interest. That’s not clearly true. Think about cases of humanitarian aid that only very indirectly if at all are in our national interest.

F. I think I understand the general thrust of this argument, but one claim makes me uncomfortable. Your inference rests on the claim, as you stated it, that Great Britain is to blame for more historical atrocities than any other European nation. That’s not clearly right.

G. I don’t think this is a good argument. We won’t clearly advance well beyond where we are today in terms of computing power because of the physical limits of the hardware we have available.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{9}\): Mapping Ojections

Identify which kind of objection is illustrated and then map the objection along with the original argument.

A. Person A: (1) Edward Snowden released petabytes of classified data. (2) He should be convicted of treason.

Person B: Wait a minute! (3) We shouldn’t just convict anyone who releases that much data of treason!

Person A: (4) If we don’t, then we’ll be opening the door to more dangerous leaks.

Person B: (5) Actually, come to think of it, I don’t think he did release petabytes. I think it was only Terabytes.

B. The Republicans have argued repeatedly that (1) the Affordable Care Act is in a death spiral. Because, they say, (2) premiums are getting higher, and (3) as premiums get higher, the people will stop purchasing policies and (4) if the people stop purchasing policies, then the insurance companies will pull out of the exchanges, and (5) if that happens, then the whole system collapses. But their conclusion doesn't follow, since (6) people need health insurance and won't stop purchasing it if prices continue to rise incrementally.

C. Person A: (1) College isn't designed around the goal of producing good plumbers and electricians and welders. (2) Furthermore, college is expensive and (3) college is time-consuming. So (4) we shouldn't expect everyone to go to college.

Person B: I understand your inference, but (5) college does make one a better plumber, electrician, and welder because it gives you a host of intellectual resources to bring to bear on solving the many unforeseen problems that arise on jobs like that.

Person C: I actually take issue with the inference here from your first claim to your conclusion, since (6) college isn't about job training, but is instead about creating a well-informed citizenry that can make rational and informed decisions at the voting booth.

D. Obama argued that (1) we should pass the ACA, claiming that (2) there is an epidemic of chronically-ill citizens without health insurance due to their pre-existing conditions and that (3) many citizens simply can’t afford health insurance.

But (4) the ACA won’t provide health insurance to a large group of relatively poor Americans.

E. Her argument was as follows: “(1) No one wants to be put in the position where they are faced with a deadly intruder without the proper means to protect theirself and their family. (2) Gun laws make it probable that someone will end up in that situation. (3) Therefore, we can’t enact gun control legislation.”

But that argument isn’t convincing. (4) Even if we accept the premises, we need not accept the conclusion. After all, there are reasons to pass gun control that must be addressed.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{10}\): Hidden Assumptions and Objections

Identify the hidden assumptions in the first argument and then map both the argument and the objections. Remember that objections to hidden assumptions are objections to inferences and so they should be mapped as such.

A. Frank: (1) We'll never make it to the party on time, so (2) let's just turn around and head home. (3) Samir and Imani live miles away and (4) we can't go very fast in this traffic.

Margaret: That's ridiculous, we'll absolutely make it on time. First, (5) we have 30 minutes to get there and also (6) we could be 15 minutes late and still be "on time" since it's a party.

B. Tamil: (1) We need to protect the environment, since (2) biodiversity is necessary to protect future food sources and (3) biodiversity is sustainable only in a relatively healthy global environment. Furthermore, (4) we take great pleasure in the natural wonders that the Earth has to offer (5) [suppressed premise]

Jamal: (6) I agree with your conclusion, but even if we accept that biodiversity is necessary and that protecting the environment is necessary for protecting biodiversity, we need not accept your conclusion.

C. (1) Counting Crows wrote and performed Mrs. Robinson, so (2) They’re the best band ever.

Ummm... (3) they wrote and performed “Mr. Jones”, not Mrs. Robinson. And either way (4) neither song would make them the best band ever.

D. He said “(1) I need some space, so (2) we need to break up.” But (3) he doesn’t need space. And either way, (4) needing space isn’t a good enough reason to break up with someone.

E. She said “(1) Potato chips are high in saturated fat and salt, and so (2) they should be consumed very sparingly.” But that’s a bad inference since (3) dietary research is overturning the idea that saturated fat is bad for humans and (4) humans need salt to maintain proper blood volume and electrolyte concentrations.

F. Pablo: (1) We shouldn’t eat even fake animal meat since (2) we wouldn’t think it’s okay to eat fake human meat. Afterall, (3) eating fake human meat would be tacitly affirming that cannibalism is morally acceptable. Marisela: I disagree, (4) there’s a faulty hidden premise there: that eating fake animal meat is analogous to eating fake human meat. Furthermore, (5) the other inference for the claim that eating fake human Meat is wrong has a hidden assumption as well and I’m not so sure it’s correct.