PART I consists of 70 multiple choice questions. Use a #2 pencil to mark your answers on the answer sheet provided.

There is only one correct answer per question. Each correct answer counts for one point.

You will not receive a penalty for registering a wrong answer. Hence, educated guessing is encouraged, and you should make sure to register an answer for every question.

1. You will not be issued a driver's license if you are not at least 16 years old. Therefore,

I. If you are issued a driver's license, then you are at least 16 years old.

II. If you are at least 16 years old, then you will be issued a driver's license.

III. If you are 16 years old or over, you will be issued a driver's license.

IV. You won't be issued a driver's license unless you are 16 years or older.

A. I B. I, III C. I, IV D. II, IV E. II, III, IV

2. Recent surveys show that less than 10% of Americans can run the mile in less than 10 minutes. It is therefore imperative that we institute a national running program to produce healthy and strong Americans.

The above argument assumes that

    I. We don't have proper facilities for running in America.

    II. Running programs are the easiest to organize.

    III. Inability to run the mile in less than 10 minutes indicates lack of health and strength.

    IV. People who are healthy run the mile in less than 10 minutes daily.

    V. There is strong public interest in instituting national health programs.

    A. II, III B. IV, V C. I D. III E. IV

3. Which of the following statements are logically equivalent?

    I. All friddles are snorfs.

    II. If one is a friddle, then one is a snorf.

    III. All non-snorfs are non-friddles.

    IV. No friddles are non-snorfs.

    V. All non-snorfs are non-friddles.

    A I, II, III B. I, II, III, IV C. II, III, IV, V ONLY D I, III, V E. I, II, III, IV, V

4. Figg is standing to the right of Lulu. Zaza is standing on the opposite side of Lulu. Since the opposite of right is wrong, it follows that Zaza is standing on the wrong side of Lulu. Which of the following logical errors are committed in the above argument?

    I. It uses the same term to mean two different things.

    II. It confuses cause and effect.

    III. It begs the question.

    IV. It provides no factual evidence for its conclusion.

    V. None of the above.

    A. I B. III C. II, IV D. I, II E. V

5. Given that the premises and the conclusion of an argument are false, which of the following is true?

    I. The argument is valid.

    II. The argument is not valid.

    III. We can't tell from this information whether its valid or not.

    IV. The argument is necessarily false.

    V. The argument has to be inductive.

    A. I B. II C. III D. IV E. V

6. A is a necessary condition for B.

If the above is true, then which of the following cannot be true?

    I. B is a sufficient condition for A.

    II. If A, then B.

    III. A, unless B.

    IV. If not-A, then not-B.

    V. None of the above.

    A. I B. II C. III D. IV E. V

7. [1]If we're going to get excited about every case of an enlisted man turning out to have been selling information to the Russians, then we're going to have to believe that all the secrets sold in cases like the recent ones are dangerous to our national security in the hands of the Russians. [2]But all of the material sold in all the recent cases has been classified "secret" by our ridiculous classification system, and [3)that category contains all the routine drivel of the operations of our security agencies, including newspaper clippings. It seems clear that [4]it's a mistake to raise such cane every time some dope gets caught playing spy. [5]We might be better off reviewing our classification system and our clearance procedures.

    I. The argumentation above has statement [1] as its main conclusion. II. Statement [4] is a conclusion of one argument and is also a premise for another argument.

    III. The main conclusion of this argument is a conditional statement.

    IV. The above passage contains no arguments.

    V. None of the above.


8. [1]If you drink three vodka martinis every lunch you will not be very effective since [2] you can't hold your liquor very well. Hence, [3] you should not drink the three you belt down each day.

Which of the following diagrams best portrays the above argument?

consider the arrows to stand for "therefore".


		A.  1 + 2      B.   1      C.    2     D.  1 +.3     E.    2
		        |                |             |                |             |
		        |                |             |                |             |
		        3                 2              1                2              1
		                          |              |                               |      
		                          |              |                               |      
		                          3               3                                3      

9. Is the following group of statements consistent or inconsistent? You may assume that the words do not change meaning or reference from one statement to another, and (unless the statements say otherwise) that they refer to the same time.

  1. Bill is the biological father of Harry.
  2. Harry is the biological father of Sam.
  3. Bill is not the biological grandfather of Sam.



Read the passage given below carefully. write a critical discussion of the argumentation contained in it. In your discussion, you should clarify the structure of the argumentation by making clear what are the premises and conclusions of any arguments, and indicate what you believe to be any important missing premises. Provide whatever commentary you think necessary to make clear what is wrong or unacceptable or questionable about the argumentation in the passage. Try to suggest ways, if there are any, in which the argumentation might be improved. If you agree with the argumentation, discuss why the arguments are good and how they might be defended against possible criticism. If you are acquainted with any fallacy names, and are able to spot where a common fallacy is committed, you may do so. But make sure that you also explain clearly where and how the fallacy is committed, and why it weakens the argument. Your recommended time for Part II is 75 minutes.

Either one thinks that there is no reason for believing any religious doctrine or one sees some reason, however, shaky for the commitment of faith. In the former case, one will be quite content to see religious debates go on, although one won't expect anything useful to come from them. But, consider the latter case. If one has the slightest reason for believing in a creed, then what? Well, if the creed is true, then one ought to be intolerant of all other creeds for what each creed says is that it is the one true creed. And since each creed holds out the promise of infinite reward any probability of its truth, however small, makes it rational for me to choose it over secular alternatives. Hence, if I see even the slightest reason for believing in any religion, I ought to commit myself to it completely and become totally dogmatic in my rejection of competing creeds. (Based on a passage by R. Wolff)


Back to Main