Name that fallacy, and in a paragraph, explain why the argument is irrelevant to the point at issue.

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)

Question 2.2. (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:
The movie No Country for Old Men was a big
hit because reviewers gave it a good write-up. (Points : 15)

Question 3.3. (TCOs 2, 4) Explain in what
way the thinking of the following statement is wrong or defective. Give reasons
for your judgment.
Joining the military, like voting, is a
major responsibility. Since 17-year-olds can serve in the military, it only
makes sense that they be allowed to vote. (Points : 10)

Question 4.4. (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)

Question 5.5. (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.
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 aged
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 (Points : 30)

Question 6.6. (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:
1. What issue is the author addressing?
2. If the author is supporting a position
with an argument, restate the argument in your own words.
3. What rhetorical devices does the author
employ in this text?

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 [legislature], 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)

Question 7.7. 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:
Ed likes to argue with just about anybody
on just about anything. One of his favorite arguments is against speeding laws.
“Why can’t I go as fast as I like?” he asks. “It’s a free country, isn’t it? I
have the right, don’t I?” Does Ed have a valid point? (Points : 20)

Question 8.8. (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)