From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Jan 22 14:30:41 2007 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:30:41 -0500 (EST) for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:30:37 -0500 (EST) 14:30:20 -0500 Delivered-To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:30:15 -0500 (EST) X-UB-Relay: (hadar.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:30:15 -0500 Reply-To: Albert Goldfain From: Albert Goldfain Subject: Argument analysis practice To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (hadar.cse.buffalo.edu) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2478/Mon Jan 22 12:07:10 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Hi all, I just wanted to post some more arguments for practice with validity, soundness, and cogency (arguments that are a bit more involved than the ones we went over in recitation). The Wed recitation folks may want to wait until after recitation before looking at these (or at least finish the required Martinich ch. 2 reading). For each of the following, decide if the argument is valid. If it isn't, ask yourself if there are any missing (unstated) premises that would make it valid. If it is, ask yourself if the argument is sound. If it isn't sound, ask yourself if there is any interpretation of the content words that would make the argument sound. If it is sound, ask yourself whether the argument is cogent (would the soundness of the argument be evident to a CSE4/584 student in the way it is presented). This is an open discussion, feel free to reply to the listserv, but try to post more than a one line comment and no flame wars please. Premises are marked as Pn and conclusions are marked Cn. Question: Are birds and beavers engineers? Argument #1: Pro -------------------------- P1. Engineers are cognitive agents that build artifacts for some identifiable purpose. P2. Birds build nests for housing their young. P3. Beavers build dams because the sound of rushing water annoys them. (see http://www.naturealmanac.com/archive/beaver_dams/beaver_dams.html ). P4. Computer engineers build computers for computation (we will think about what this means later). C1. Therefore, birds, beavers, and computer engineers are all engineers. Argument #2: Con -------------------------- P5. Engineers are cognitive agents that build artifacts for some identifiable purpose AND who know what that purpose is. P6. Birds and beavers do not know why they build nests and dams respectively, they are only responding to biological/evolutionary instincts. P7. Computer Engineers build computers for computation AND know what the purpose of computation is. C2. Therefore, computer engineers are engineers, but birds and beavers are not. Have fun, Albert ps...are there better arguments for either the Pro or Con position?