Reflection

choose one of the following passages: 1. Passages • Passage 1 (13A(b)). If the conclusion that a god exists is to be demonstrably certain, then these premises [from which it follows] must be certain. . . (1). But we know that no empirical proposition can ever be anything more than probable (2). It is only “a priori” propositions [propositions like “all bachelors are unmarried males,” which are true in virtue of the meanings of the terms involved in the sentence] that are logically certain (3). But we cannot deduce the existence of god from an “a priori” proposition (4). For we know that the reason why “a priori” propositions are certain is that they are tautologies [statements that are necessarily true] (5). And from a set of tautologies nothing but a further tautology can be validly deduced (6). It follows that there is no possibility of demonstrating the existence of god (7). • Passage 2 (13A(d)). ¶1 I’m a Catholic and I believe that any marriage is worth saving (1). But I’m also pragmatic and I have even recommended a couple of friends go ahead with their decision to divorce their partners (2). This is because I believe divorce is not always bad (3). ¶2 Worst case scenario for a divorce is spousal abuse (4). Sure, the couple can go to see a counsellor on that matter (5). In many cases, however, it is probably safer for the abused spouse to just leave (6). Here, divorce isn’t such a bad thing (7). It might even save one’s life (8). ¶3 Then there is the irreparable difference, unresolved by marriage counseling (9). When the couples don’t even talk to each other anymore or can’t stand each other anymore perhaps to the point of only wanting to hurt each other’s feelings, divorce seems to be the best strategy (10). ¶4 What about children (11)? That’s the hardest factor in deciding to divorce (12). Children do thrive better when their parents are together (13). I remain, however, a little bit 1 skeptical, especially considering the possible short- and long-term emotional and social effects on children when their parents can’t stand each other anymore (14). Isn’t it the children’s right, too, to experience that their parents are happy individuals unrestrained by their marital statuses (15)? And don’t children thrive well when their parents are happy even when separated (16)? ¶5 In sum, no, divorce is not always bad (17). There are circumstances where the benefits of divorce exceed its cost (18). This is, however, not an excuse to make divorce as the feasible exit strategy when things go awry in a marriage (19). There are ways to resolve dilemmas or problems in any marriage (20). It only takes courage, patience, and perseverance, and the desire to save the marriage (21). • Passage 3 (13A(f)). Look around today and you can see for yourself that most of the organisms you come across are not making it into the fossil record (1). It takes a rather special combination of physical factors—usually those of swamps or estuaries where remains can be buried in sediment, be compacted and, if lucky, remain undisturbed for millions of years—for the bones or imprints of an organism to achieve a measure of immortality in stone (2). To then become part of the scientific body of evidence, they have to erode in such a way as not to be destroyed and then found by someone who recognizes their importance (3). Furthermore, from what we know of evolutionary mechanisms, speciation events are likely to occur in isolated populations (4), and competition will quickly eliminate the less fit of closely similar forms (5). Both processes make it even more unlikely that there will be a smooth, continuous fossil record of intermediaries (6). Thus, it is not at all surprising that there are “missing links” in the fossil record (7), and this is not good evidence against evolutionary transmutation (8). 2. Evaluative Critique Steps These are the steps to writing a evaluative response. Step 1: Write an overview of the main argument and any sub-arguments supporting it. • Try to summarize the arguer’s point succinctly. Step 2: Diagram the macro-structure and micro-structure of the argument. I’ve numbered all the sentences in the passages (some are grammatically one sentence, but I’ve put two numbers in there because there are two independent thoughts). Some sentences will not be part of the argument proper, in which case you can leave them out. Diagramming will require you to use some kind of shape function in whatever word processor you’re using. If your word processor doesn’t have a shape function, Google Docs has a free one. You can either put the diagrams directly in your paper or give them names (like “figure 1”) and put them in the back and refer to them in your prose. • First, diagram the main argument (i.e., the argument without any sub arguments). • Then, diagram any sub-arguments. Step 3: Assess the language of the argument. Don’t consider noise. • Note whether any important argumentative terms are vague, ambiguous, or loaded. 2 • Do any important terms in the argument need definition? Some of the language in the above selections is specialized. If you don’t know a term, look it up in a reputable source. As a UNLV student, you have access to numerous such sources through the library (just the online Oxford English Dictionary will get you pretty far, which you can find through the library’s website). Step 4: Assess the argument’s reasoning. This is the biggest step. • Are the premises are acceptable? – This means that you’ll be testing every premise of your diagram that does not have an arrow going to it for acceptability. – Cite acceptability/unacceptability conditions where relevant. • Does each arrow pass the sufficiency test? – This means, for each arrow, you’ll ask: Supposing the premise (or premises for the linked case) on the non-tail end of the arrow are true, does that make the conclusion on the tail end of the arrow likely enough to accept? • Are any fallacies are present?