Chapter 11 Study Questions

1. How are the conclusions we find in causal reasoning different from a conclusion we find in a deductively valid argument? Use examples to illustrate.
2. What are three kinds of causal confusions that are made concerning health information? Provide an example for each.
3. The quality of health information widely available to the public can vary considerably. Discuss two or three guidelines for assessing the quality of that information.
4. When there is no consensus among experts on a health matter, we have to do our best to make an informed assessment. Think of three good questions that can help us make important distinctions in the midst of expert disagreement.
5. Some of the fallacies previously discussed provide prime examples of mistakes concerning health issues. Identify at least two of the fallacies previously covered and then provide an example of each, drawing from a health information source or a health care setting.
6. It is not unusual in a courtroom setting to find inductive arguments that make inferences to the best explanation. Discuss the limitations of such explanations in a legal setting, and use your own example of such an explanation and what its limits might be.
7. Construct a valid categorical syllogism that establishes guilt or innocence in a criminal case.
8. Describe examples of three informal fallacies that might arise in a courtroom setting.
9. Discuss some of the challenges of relying on eyewitness testimony in a criminal court.
10. What is a good working definition of ethics?
11. What are at least three kinds of ethical claims? Provide an example for each.
12. Construct an example of an ethical argument and present it in syllogistic form. Compare and contrast the two premises and their function in an ethical argument.
13. Describe the ethical theory that is based on consequences (consequentialism). Provide an example of an ethical argument that is consequentialist in approach.
14. Describe the ethical theory that is based on rights and duties. Provide an example of an ethical argument that follows this approach.
15. Describe the ethical theory that is based on character. Provide an example of an ethical argument that follows this approach.
16. What is the fallacy known as appeal to emotion? How might a defense lawyer use it to defend his client in a criminal trial?
17. What is the fallacy known as ad hominem? How might a prosecutor use it in a criminal trial?
18. What is the fallacy known as appeal to popularity? How might an arguer use it to misdirect his or her audience into accepting a dubious health claim?
19. What is the fallacy known as appeal to tradition? How might an arguer use it to misdirect his or her audience into accepting a dubious health claim?
20. What is the fallacy known as false dilemma? How might a lawyer in a criminal trial use it, whether for the prosecution or for the defense?
    

Study Exercises

1. Find a recent newspaper or magazine article on any health-related topic. Assess the quality of the information in the article based on the criteria discussed in this chapter.
2. Summarize the key arguments made by the prosecution or the defence in a criminal trial (real or fictional). Try to translate the arguments into either categorical or propositional logic and then assess their validity. See if you can find any examples of either side using inference to the best explanation. If so, indicate what fact the inference tries to explain and how successful the explanation is.
3. Develop an ethical argument drawn from any of the theoretical approaches treated in this chapter. Include a theoretical and descriptive premise and an ethical conclusion. Is the argument valid? If not, explain why and try to revise it so that it is valid, if possible. How acceptable are its premises?