(1) Give deductively valid arguments for the following conclusions:(a) Maya is a

(1) Give deductively valid arguments for the following conclusions:(a) Maya is a genius (b) No politicians are friendly (c) Tea is good for youHere is an example, for the following conclusion for how the upper three need to be done.d) The object in my hands is a musical instrumentP1) All guitars are musical instrumentsP2) The object in my hands is a guitarC) The object in my hands is a musical instrument(2) Standardise the following arguments, which means you have to identify and number the premises and conclusion. Apply the principle of charity, so paraphrase where necessary and include hidden/implicit premises and conclusions.Important: also include an assessment of each argument. Is the argument valid and sound? (a) “If NAFTA were really a free trade agreement it would contain just a page or two on eliminating tariffs. Instead, NAFTA is an 824-page tome packed with rules to protect drug companies, banks, and Wall Street investors. Safeguards for workers, the environment or food quality don’t merit even a footnote.”(b) “The editors of Nature assert that the emergence of the human mind without intelligent design is an unassailable fact. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this claim, aside from the problems with their interpretation of the scientific evidence itself, is the admission by the editors that the question of intelligent design in biology can be adjudicated by the scientific method. If the evidence for or against intelligent design can be evaluated scientifically – as editors at Nature firmly assert that it can – then intelligent design is a real scientific inference, albeit, according to the Nature editors, a mistaken one. And if they are asserting that intelligent design is mistaken from a non-scientific standpoint, then the editors are advancing an atheistic theology, as Senator Brownback pointed out. The mainstay of the materialists’ argument against intelligent design has been that it isn’t science. Yet, as the Nature editors inadvertently demonstrate so clearly, the materialists’ argument against intelligent design is self-refuting; they argue that intelligent design isn’t science, and that it’s scientifically wrong. Yet if intelligent design is scientifically wrong – if it is an ‘unassailable fact’ that the human mind is the product of evolution, not intelligent design – then the inference can be investigated (and, they claim, refuted) using the scientific method. Then intelligent design is science. Either the conclusion that the editors reached is the result of a scientific analysis of the design inference, or the conclusion that the editors reached is the result of a non-scientific analysis of the design inference, which would be, as Senator Brownback observed, atheistic theology posing as science. Either intelligent design is science, or Senator Brownback got it right.”
Requirements: 500   |   .doc file

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *