CATA 335                                          Practice Exercises 10                         McGaan

 

The following arguments contain claims and grounds.  You must infer and write out the warrant and label it by type (i.e. analogy, cause, definition, etc.).  Then create/ indicate an appropriate qualifier, reservation, and backing for this argument.

 

1. [gr.]Al Gore received more votes than George Bush in the presidential election of 2000; therefore, [cl.] he probably should have won.

 

[w.] The person with the most votes wins.  (DEFINITION OR VALUE)

[b.] it=s a fundamental principle of democracy.

[q.] probably

[r.] unless he did not win a majority of the electoral vote.

 

2. Given [gr.] the shuttle disaster, [cl.] NASA should abandon the manned space program.

 

[w.] Programs that fail to meet their goals should be abandoned. (POLICY or AUTHORITY)

[b.] according to the text, APrinciples of Public Administration.@

[q.] in most cases

[r.] unless we know for sure how to prevent any future similar accidents

 

3. [cl.] We should have never been involved in Vietnam because [cl.] it was a civil war which had no direct bearing on our national interests.

 

[w.] Never get involved in war unless the national interest is at stake.  (POLICY or AUTHORITY)

[b.] according to Henry Kissenger in APractical Foreign Policy.@

[q.] never

[r.] unless the American public is nearly 100% behind it

 

4. [gr.] Unless the car is out of gas, [cl.]  the reason it won't start must be a dead battery.

 

[w.] These are the only two reasons why a car won=t start.  (AUTHORITY or CAUSE)

[b.] My mother says so.  OR  scientific testing shows

[q.] must be (true)

[r.] unless the engine=s flooded

(Clearly this is a stupid Aargument@ because the warrant is absurd, but . . .  I actually heard someone say this.)

 

5. [cl.] DNA testing evidence should not be allowed in court because [gr.] no technology is ever completely reliable.

 

[w.] ACourts should not admit evidence that is not reliable.@  (AUTHORITY)

[b.] AIllinois Criminal Procedure, Chapter 2 - Rules of Evidence@

[q.] ever

[r.] unless a preponderance of experts conclude it is sufficiently reliable to establish scientific certainty.

 

last updated 2/2/2003