Perkins 1

Amanda M. Perkins

Ethics

September 14, 2019

Assignment 2

A1. The sun is a star.

2. The earth is a planet.
Therefore,
3. The earth is 93 million miles from the sun.

Valid/ Not Valid? This is not a valid argument

Why? While the first and second premises are factual, they do not correlate with the conclusion
therefore it is an invalid argument with an unsupported conclusion.

B1. If Hillary Clinton is president, then Bill Clinton is vice president.

2. Hillary Clinton is president.
Therefore,
3. Bill Clinton is vice president.

Valid/ Not Valid? This is a valid argument

Why? While this argument has unfactual premises that do not necessarily correlate with one
another, using the thought process that if they are true then so is the conclusion makes the
argument valid. If both were factual it would be a supported conclusion, however due to its
lacking of facts, it is an unsupported conclusion.

C1. If water at sea level boils at 212 degrees F, then water at sea level boils at 100 degrees C.
2. Water at sea level boils at 212 degrees F.
Therefore,
3. Water at sea level boils at 100 degrees C.

Valid/ Not Valid? This argument is a valid argument

Why? Because we are taking the premise as truth then they lead directly into the conclusion.
The conclusion is in direct response to what the supporting details provided therefore based off
of the rules of an argument it is valid. Another aspect of this argument is that due to it being
factual, it is also a supported conclusion.

This study source was downloaded by 100000803079377 from CourseHero.com on 01-28-2022 09:33:26 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/46864692/Assignment-2docx/
 Perkins 2

D1. Either God exists or life has no meaning.

2. God doesn’t exist.
Therefore,
3. Life has no meaning.

Valid/ Not Valid? This is a valid argument

Why? While this argument is valid, it is also unsupported due to the incapability to prove or
disprove the premises that are provided. It is flawed due to its lack of credibility; however, it is
set up with a supporting premise to the conclusion if it were factual.

E1. If there is an afterlife, then it is wise to be moral.

2. There is no afterlife.
Therefore,
3. It isn’t wise to be moral.

Valid/ Not Valid? This argument is not valid

Why? Both the structure and factual evidence regarding this argument are incorrect. The factual
evidence that supports the conclusion can neither be proven nor disproven therefore it is not a
premise that should be accepted. At the same time, the argument makes a flawed conclusion
that was not led to directly based on the initial statement therefore it is invalid.

F1. If I am riding a bike, then I am alive.

2. I am not riding a bike.
Therefore,
3. I am not alive.

Valid/ Not Valid? This argument is not valid

Why? This argument is not valid for the same reasons why E’s argument was invalid. Just
because one is stated as not happening does not immediately correlate with the conclusion.
While the premise is factual, it is still a skewed unsupported conclusion.

G1. If fetuses are human beings, then abortion is immoral.

2. Abortion is immoral.
Therefore,
3. Fetuses are human beings.

Valid/ Not Valid? This argument is invalid

Why? While there is debate over whether or not a fetus should be classified as a human being,
science has deemed that a fact. This states that the conclusion has a factual statement, however
it remains unsupported due to the inability to conclude if the premise is fact or opinion. The
structural integrity of the argument is incorrect as well due to the conclusion not directly coming
from the premise.

This study source was downloaded by 100000803079377 from CourseHero.com on 01-28-2022 09:33:26 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/46864692/Assignment-2docx/
 Perkins 3

H1. If I am a millionaire, then I can afford to buy a new TV.

2. I can afford to buy a new TV.
Therefore,
3. I am a millionaire.

Valid/ Not Valid? This argument is invalid

Why? This argument is invalid due to the premise not directly leading to the conclusion. While
you may be able to afford a new TV, that does not support nor immediately lead to being a
millionaire. The conclusion is both unsupported and the structure of the argument is invalid.

I1. If euthanasia is legalized, then this will reduce the overall amount of misery in society.
2. If euthanasia reduces the overall amount of misery in a society, then it is morally acceptable.
Therefore,
3. If euthanasia is legalized, then it is morally acceptable.

Valid/ Not Valid? This argument is valid

Why? While the conclusion is not directly supported due to its inability to stand to criticism and
different possibly negative outcomes, the argument is still solid in structure and therefore valid.

J1. If animals have rights, then it is wrong to eat them.

2. It isn’t wrong to eat animals.
Therefore,
3. Animals don’t have rights.

Valid/ Not Valid? This argument is invalid

Why? While the premise directly leads to the conclusion, it is still both unsupported due to
different pros and cons of eating animal protein and the omission of any direct cause and effect
when related to the structure of the argument. Just because it is considered “right” to eat
animals does not directly correlate to the animals not having rights.

K1. Anti-drug laws are morally legitimate only if paternalistic laws are morally acceptable.
2. Paternalistic laws are morally unacceptable.
Therefore,
3. Anti-drug laws are not morally legitimate.

Valid/ Not Valid? This argument is invalid

Why? For the same reasons as listed before about the negative side of arguments I have listed
this argument as invalid due to the structure of it. However, on a supported vs unsupported
conclusion side of things I’m quite confused. I would like to say its unsupported due to the lack
of relevance between the subjects, however this one is kind of up for interpretation to me.

This study source was downloaded by 100000803079377 from CourseHero.com on 01-28-2022 09:33:26 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/46864692/Assignment-2docx/
 Perkins 4

L1. If societies disagree about moral issues, then there is no objective morality.
2. Societies agree about moral issues.
Therefore,
3. There is an objective morality.

Valid/ Not Valid? This is a valid argument

Why? Even though this one is stating the opposite like the ones earlier, it is still sound in its
structure and validated process. The supporting details directly relate and lead to the conclusion
which is, in fact, a supported conclusion due to its ability to stand against scrutiny.

M1. The death penalty is justified only if it gives criminals their just deserts.
2. The death penalty gives criminals their just deserts.
Therefore,
3. The death penalty for murderers is justified.

Valid/ Not Valid? This argument is valid

Why? While this argument is a controversial one that can not fully stand up to scrutiny on its
own, it is still a well-structured argument with strong supporting details that lead to the exact
conclusion that it speaks of. The thought process with whether or not the conclusion is
supported though is kind of up for interpretation to me, however, due to its pros and cons that
each side would present as evidence.

N1. If you want to succeed in your moral reasoning, then you have to master the details of this
chapter.
2. If you have to master the details of this chapter, then you should ask your instructor for help if
you don’t understand any aspect of it.
Therefore,
3. If you want to succeed in your moral reasoning, then you should ask your instructor for help if
you don’t understand any aspect of this chapter.

Valid/ Not Valid? This is a valid argument

Why? This is the type of argument that uses “if a, then be as long as c” to say there can be
exceptions that keep the argument from being too vague and wide spread. In this case its still
using the supporting details to lead to the intended conclusion, but also makes note that you
should ask the instructor for help if there are any questions regarding to the comprehension of
the material. The conclusion is not necessarily supported, though, because there are no factual
reasons to believe that the only way to succeed in moral reasoning is mastering the details of
this chapter alone. That may definitely help, but because there is room for scrutiny and question,
it ultimately is unsupported in my opinion.

This study source was downloaded by 100000803079377 from CourseHero.com on 01-28-2022 09:33:26 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/46864692/Assignment-2docx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)