Question 1. Identifying conclusions

Q1a. Read the following passage from a newspaper report and then answer the question below.

Thousands of Australians are estimated to use the illegal drug, MDMA, also known as Ecstasy, every week because of its tendency to cause feelings of happiness, empathy, intimacy, and reduced anxiety. In an article published in the Journal of Law and Medicine, pharmacist Joshua Donelly and doctor Professor David Pennington argue that the Australian government should legalize Ecstasy and regulate its production and sale through pharmacies. According to the authors, compared to other drugs, MDMA causes negligible harm to users and people around them. Most of the harms that do occur arise from impurities and contamination in the illegally manufactured drug. But if the government regulated the production and sale of Ecstasy through pharmacies, the harms associated with taking contaminated, impure Ecstasy would be avoided.

(Adapted from a report in The Age newspaper, July 2015)

Which one of the following most accurately represents the main conclusion of the argument reported above?

(A) Thousands of Australians are estimated to use the illegal drug MDMA every week because of its tendency to cause feelings of happiness, empathy, intimacy, and reduced anxiety.

(B) If the government regulated the production and sale of Ecstasy through pharmacies, the harms associated with taking contaminated, impure Ecstasy would be avoided.

(C) The Australian government should legalize Ecstasy and regulate its production and sale through pharmacies.

(D)Compared to other drugs, MDMA causes negligible harm to users and people around them.

(E) Most of the harms caused by MDMA arise from impurities and contamination in the illegally

manufactured drug.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

(A) No increases in temperature have been detected following earthquakes.

(B) The current theory does not fully explain all the known facts concerning earthquakes.

(C) No one will ever be sure what the true cause of earthquakes is.

(D) Earthquakes produce enormous amounts of heat that have so far gone undetected.

(E) Contrary to the current theory, earthquakes are not caused by adjoining plates of rock sliding past one another.

Question 2: Evaluating simple arguments

Evaluate the following arguments, answering the following questions:

(1) Do the premises support the conclusion? That is, if all the premises were all true, would they provide a sufficient reason to accept the conclusion?

(2) Are the premises all true? Make some research at this part. Provide citations for your sources (URLs are fine). If a premise is not a straightforwardly factual matter, then you should a) state whether you would accept the premise or not and b) give at least one reason why or why not.

(3) Overall, is the argument sound? Briefly explain why or why not.

Example in answering

1. All ungulates have hooves

2. Goats do not have hooves

Therefore: C. Goats are not ungulates

(1) Do the premises support for the conclusion? If the premises were all true, the conclusion would have to be true too, so the premises support the conclusion. If goats do not have hooves, then they cannot be ungulates if the first premise is true.

(2) Are the premises all true?

The term 'ungulate' can be defined as 'animal with hooves', so the first premise is true. Some research on the internet shows that goats do have hooves however, so the second premise is false. (Sources: Wikipedia entries on 'ungulate' and 'cloven hooves').

(3) Overall, is the argument sound? The argument is not sound. Although the premises support the conclusion, the second premise is false.