Answer Philosopy Questions and Identify the Investigation

Please refer to the chapters.

Question  1 (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:


The movie No Country for Old Men was a big hit because reviewers gave it a good write-up.

      Question 2  (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)

      Question 3  (TCOs 6, 7, 9) Here is a short essay about an investigation.
Scientists have learned that people who drink wine weekly or monthly are less likely to develop dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. (Daily wine drinking, however, seems to produce no protective effect.) The lead researcher was Dr. Thomas Truelsen of the Institute of Preventive Medicine at Kommunehospitalet in Copenhagen. The researchers identified the drinking patters of 1,709 people in Copenhagen in the 1970s and then assessed them for dementia in the 1990s, when they were age 65 or older. When they were assessed two decades later, 83 of the participants had developed dementia. People who drank beer regularly were an increased risk of developing dementia.
-adapted from BBC News Online

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

Question 4  (TCOs 3, 4, 6) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question.

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

(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.
 A.
(1) Issue: Whether DeLay is mean and not in-line with normal behavior among Texas politicians.
(2) Position taken: Delay is mean and is not like other Texas politicians.
(3) One claim defines vindictive behavior and then another claim is made that DeLay often behaves vindictively, whereas most other Texas politicians do not.
(4) By and large and quite often might be taken as weaselers. The Hammer is a dysphemism. (Points : 30)