(TCOs 3, 6, 7, 9) Here is a passage that contains a rhetorical

BUS380-Final

1.(TCOs 3, 6, 7, 9) Here is a passage
that contains a rhetorical fallacy.
Name that fallacy, and in a paragraph, explain why the argument is irrelevant
to the point at issue. Here is your example for this question:
An editorial says, “Taxes have jumped by more than 30% in just two years!
The governor is working for a balanced state budget, but it’ll be on the backs
of us taxpayers, the people who have the very least to spend! It seems pretty
clear that these increased taxes are undermining the social structure in this
state. Anybody who isn’t angry about this just doesn’t understand the situation
and hasn’t figured out just how miserable they are.” (Points : 15)

2.(TCOs
5, 8) In the example below, identify the presumed cause and the presumed
effect. Does the example contain or imply a causal claim, a hypothesis, or an
explanation that cannot be tested?
If it does fall into one of those categories, tell whether the problem is due
to vagueness, circularity, or some other problem of language.
Also tell whether there might be some way to test the situation, if it is
possible at all.
Here is your example:
Our class instructor has blue eyes, because she had them in a previous
incarnation. (Points : 15)

3.(TCOs
2, 4) Explain in what way the thinking of the following statement is wrong or
defective. Give reasons for your judgment.
There must be something to palm reading. Millions of people believe in it.
(Points : 10)

4.(TCOs
3, 9) Suppose that a group of immigrants to the U.S. believes in child
sacrifice as an essential part of their religious rituals. If one day the
immigrant group becomes so integrated into U.S. society that most of its
members no longer believe in child sacrifice, can this be thought of as moral
progress from the standpoint of moral relativism? (Points : 10)

5.(TCOs
6, 7, 9) Here is a short essay about an investigation.
There are also four questions/tasks; write a paragraph to answer each one of
them.
1. Identify the causal hypothesis at issue.
2. Identify what kind of investigation it is.
3. There are control and experimental groups. State the difference in effect
(or cause) between the control and experimental groups.
4. State the conclusion that you think is warranted by the report.
Research at the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of
Philadelphia indicates that children who sleep in a dimly lighted room until
age two may be up to five times more likely to develop myopia (nearsightedness)
when they grow up.
The researchers asked the parents of children who had been patients at the
researchers’ eye clinic to recall the lighting conditions in the children’s
bedroom from birth to age two.
Of a total of 172 children who slept in darkness, 10% were nearsighted. Of a
total of 232 who slept with a night light, 34% were nearsighted. Of a total of
75 who slept with a lamp on, 55% were nearsighted.
The lead ophthalmologist, Dr. Graham, E. Quinn, said that “just as the
body needs to rest, this suggests that the eyes need a period of
darkness.” (Points : 30)

6.(TCOs
3, 4, 6) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three
questions, writing a paragraph for each question. Your three questions are as
follows.
1. What position does the author take on the issue at hand?
2. What rhetorical fallacies are being used in the article?
3. If the author is supporting a position with an argument, restate the
argument in your own words.

The Passage:
“Another quality that makes [Texas Republican and former Congressman] Tom
DeLay an un-Texas politician is that he’s mean. By and large, Texas pols are an
agreeable set of less-than-perfect humans and quite often well intentioned. As
Carl Parker of Port Arthur used to observe, if you took all the fools out of
the [Congress], it would not be a representative body any longer. The old sense
of collegiality was strong, and vindictive behavior punishing pols for partisan
reasons was simply not done. But those are Tom DeLay’s specialties, his
trademarks. The Hammer is not only genuinely feared in Washington, he is, I’m sorry
to say, hated.”
-excerpt from a column by Molly Ivins, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram (Points :
30)

7.(TCOs
7, 8) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer the question in at
least one full paragraph, giving specific reasons.

The Passage:
Elizabeth has a paper due tomorrow morning. She has tried to write something
for hours, but has no ideas for a good paper. Elizabeth remembers that her
sorority sister, Deb, said that Elizabeth could use any of Deb’s papers in
their sorority house computer. Elizabeth remembers that Deb wrote a paper on
the very same topic the previous semester. Elizabeth decides to get Deb’s paper
off the sorority house computer and leave a note telling Deb what she has done.
Elizabeth feels confident that she has Deb’s permission to do this. Is
Elizabeth guilty of plagiarizing? (Points : 20)

8.(TCOs
6, 7, 9) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three
questions, writing a paragraph for each question.
Your three questions are:
1. What premises is the author using?
2. What conclusions does the author come to?
3. Does the passage contain any errors in reasoning?
Either one thinks that there is no reason for believing any political doctrine
or one sees some reason, however shaky, for the commitment of politics. If a
person believes that political doctrines are void of content, that person will
be quite content to see political debates go on, but won’t expect anything
useful to come from them. If we consider the other case, that there is a
patriotic justification for a political belief, then what? If the belief is
that a specific political position is true, then one ought to be intolerant of
all other political beliefs, since each political “position” must be held to be
false relative to the belief one has. And since each political position holds
out the promise of reward for any probability of its fixing social problems,
however small, that makes it seem rational to choose it over its alternatives.
The trouble, of course, is that the people who have other political doctrines
may hold theirs just as strongly, making strength of belief itself invalid as a
way to determine the rightness of a political position. (Points : 20)