Read each argument. Then, for each sentence in italics, answer the following questions:

• Does the claim function in the argument as an unsupported premise, as a supported premise, as the conclusion of the argument, or as neither premise nor conclusion (NPNC)?
• Is the claim being made explicitly, implicitly, or not at all? An implicit claim is a part of the argument that goes unstated.

1. Since morals have an influence on actions and emotions, it follows that morals cannot be derived entirely from reason; because reason alone can never influence actions and emotions.

Reason cannot by itself give rise to morals.

___ unsupported premise ___ explicit

___ supported premise ___ implicit

___ conclusion ___ not at all

___ NPNC

By itself, reason can have no influence on actions and emotions.

___ unsupported premise ___ explicit

___ supported premise ___ implicit

___ conclusion ___ not at all

___ NPNC

2. The promise you make with a gun to your head is devoid of moral or legal force; for nobody is obligated in any way to keep a pledge made under duress.

It is not obligatory to honor promises made under duress.

___ unsupported premise ___ explicit

___ supported premise ___ implicit

___ conclusion ___ not at all

___ NPNC

If you have a gun to your head, then you have no obligations.

___ unsupported premise ___ explicit

___ supported premise ___ implicit

___ conclusion ___ not at all

___ NPNC

3. As unpleasant as the current shortage is, it means we are consuming less. And so in the long run our standard of living will rise. For in order to improve our standard of living, we must save, and in order to save, we must forgo current consumption.

Our standard of living will eventually rise

___ unsupported premise ___ explicit

___ supported premise ___ implicit

___ conclusion ___ not at all

___ NPNC

Unless we cut back on consumption, we won't be able to save

___ unsupported premise ___ explicit

___ supported premise ___ implicit

___ conclusion ___ not at all

___ NPNC

4. Pasteur carried out at least one spectacular experiment having to do with the effect of temperature on susceptibility to infection. Puzzled by the fact that hens would not contract anthrax, he had wondered whether this might not be explained by their body temperature, which is higher than that of animals susceptible to the disease. To test this hypothesis, he inoculated hens with anthrax bacilli and placed them in a cold bath to lower their body temperature. Animals so treated died the next day, showing numerous bacilli in their blood and organs. Another hen, similarly infected and maintained in the cold bath until the disease was in full progress, was then taken out of the water, dried, wrapped, and placed under conditions that allowed rapid return to normal body temperature. The hen made a complete recovery! A mere fall of a few degrees was sufficient to render birds almost as receptive to anthrax as were rabbits or guinea pigs.

Lowering a hen's body temperature causes the hen to be susceptible to anthrax.

___ unsupported premise ___ explicit

___ supported premise ___ implicit

___ conclusion ___ not at all

___ NPNC

5. Every abortion ends an innocent human life, and to end an innocent human life is murder. Everyone knows it is wrong to commit murder, so abortions are wrong.

All abortions end innocent human lives.

___ unsupported premise ___ explicit

___ supported premise ___ implicit

___ conclusion ___ not at all

___ NPNC

All abortions are murders.

___ unsupported premise ___ explicit

___ supported premise ___ implicit

___ conclusion ___ not at all

___ NPNC

6. Sure, things are bad. But where there's a will, there's a way. And they're willing to do whatever it takes to fix the problem.

There is a way for them to fix the problem.

___ unsupported premise ___ explicit

___ supported premise ___ implicit

___ conclusion ___ not at all

___ NPNC

7. Food that generates stomach acid is bad for people with ulcers, and fried foods generate stomach acid. So Ralph really shouldn't eat at Al's Chickenette.

Ralph has ulcers

___ unsupported premise ___ explicit

___ supported premise ___ implicit

___ conclusion ___ not at all

___ NPNC

8. Because the greatest mitochondrial variations occur in African people, scientists conclude that they have the longest evolutionary history. And this indicates a probable African origin for modern humans.

The evolutionary history of Africans is longer than that for any other people.

___ unsupported premise ___ explicit

___ supported premise ___ implicit

___ conclusion ___ not at all

___ NPNC

9. It has been speculated that crotonaldehyde - which is a violent stomach irritant, and as such has been used in the compounding of "Mickey Finns" when the bartender in a rough bar wishes to cause an obnoxious customer to leave the premises - may be the ingredient that causes some people to break out in hives when they eat strawberries. However, this is not a firm speculation, because raspberries also contain crotonaldehyde and some people who cannot eat strawberries can eat raspberries without difficulty.

Crotonaldehyde has been used by bartenders to make Mickey Finns

___ unsupported premise ___ explicit

___ supported premise ___ implicit

___ conclusion ___ not at all

___ NPNC

10. LaFontaine, after hours of heavy drinking, crawls out of the tavern utterly soused. Somehow he manages, mostly by random motion, to get in his car and start the motor. While he is slumped over the wheel almost unconscious, his foot presses the accelerator and his car lurches forward, crashing into a building with such force that the building is knocked off its foundation. The police arrive, extract LaFontaine from the wreckage, and (unsurprisingly) arrest him for drunk driving. The surprise is that, at his trial, LaFontaine pleads not guilty. His lawyer doesn't contest the fact that LaFontaine was drunk. Just the reverse: he bases his defense on the fact that he was drunk as a skunk. This is the substance of the lawyer's argument: Suppose someone is turning the dials on his stereo set, trying to tune in the radio. Unknown to him, the stereo is wired to his car in such a way that turning the dials results in the car's moving forward and backward. That person isn't driving his car because driving is the name of an intentional action. This person isn't driving because he doesn't intend that his car move, and he's unaware that his actions result in that movement. Now, LaFontaine, it's clear, was so drunk that he had no idea what he was doing. He didn't even know he was in his car. His actions - unbeknownst to him - resulted in his car's motion, but he wasn't driving it. LaFontaine might be charged with public drunkenness, and he might be sued by the owner of the building for unintentionally damaging it. But he's not guilty of dangerous driving. Dangerous, yes. Driving, no.

To drive a car is to do something intentionally.

___ unsupported premise ___ explicit

___ supported premise ___ implicit

___ conclusion ___ not at all

___ NPNC

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Claim Analysis Argument 1 Unsupported premise implicit Reason cannot influence actions and emotions Supported premise explicit Morals have an influenc... View the full answer