If all the premises are true, then it is likely, or highly probable, that the conclusion is also true.
The argument is true.
The argument has all true premises and a true conclusion.
None of the above.
A strong argument is one such that the connection between the premises and the conclusion
guarantees that if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
makes it that the conclusion is likely true, even though some of the relevant premises are false.
cannot be undermined by adding additional premises.
None of the above.
Which of the following arguments are valid (there may be more than one)?
All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. --------------------------- Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
All swans ever seen until now have been white. ----------------------------- Therefore, the next swan seen will be white.
All swans ever seen until now have been white. ------------------------------------------------- Therefore, all swans are white.
If the moon is made of cheese, then the moon is edible. The moon is made of cheese. ----------------------------------------------- Therefore, the moon is edible.
The way to show that an argument form is not valid is to show which of the following? (There may be more than one correct answer):
The argument contains false premises.
The conclusion of the argument in question is false.
The argument is missing a relevant premise necessary to establish the conclusion.
The argument could have all true premises and a false conclusion.
If ethics is primarily inductive then which of the following is true (there may be more than one correct answer)?
There is decision procedure for determining the truth of a conclusion in a finite amount of time.
There are a limited set of principles that will decide "once and for all" whether some action is right or wrong.
Moral judgment is fallible.
Ethical principles are always and everywhere wrong.