Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: Çok zorEquivocation (Uncertain Use of a Term)

According to the established standards of rational inquiry, a theory is justified only if it is supported by a preponderance of empirical evidence. The striking workers claim that their decision to blockade the factory is justified because it is the only way to force management to the negotiating table and secure living wages. But this demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of rational inquiry. Since the workers have provided no empirical evidence to support their blockade, their claim that the blockade is justified is entirely without merit.

Which of the following most accurately describes a logical flaw in the argument's reasoning?

  1. It illicitly employs a term in a sense appropriate to evaluating truth claims in order to judge the merits of a practical endeavor.Cevap
  2. B
    It confuses a condition that is required for a theory to be justified with a condition that guarantees that a theory is justified.
  3. C
    It presumes, without providing justification, that no labor dispute can be successfully resolved without adhering strictly to the standards of rational inquiry.
  4. D
    It trades on an ambiguity in the concept of 'empirical evidence' by conflating evidence for a theory's truth with evidence for a strategy's effectiveness.
  5. E
    It infers a causal relationship between the provision of empirical evidence and the justification of a claim, when only a conditional relationship has been established.

Cevap

The argument is flawed because it illicitly employs a term in a sense appropriate to evaluating truth claims in order to judge the merits of a practical endeavor.
The correct answer accurately describes the argument's fallacy of equivocation. The author establishes a standard for when a theory is 'justified' (an epistemic sense involving truth and factual evidence) and then inappropriately applies that exact standard to a 'decision to blockade' (a practical endeavor where 'justified' means morally or strategically warranted). By conflating these two distinct meanings of 'justified', the argument reaches a flawed conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first premise to identify the standard established by the author.
The author establishes that a 'theory is justified only if it is supported by a preponderance of empirical evidence.' Here, 'justified' means epistemically validated.
Understanding the initial definition of key terms is necessary to track how they are used later in the argument.
2
Analyze the target of the author's critique.
The author is criticizing the striking workers' claim that their 'decision to blockade the factory is justified.' Here, 'justified' means practically or morally defensible.
Identifying the shift in context (from evaluating a 'theory' to evaluating a 'decision') is crucial for spotting semantic shifts.
3
Evaluate the author's conclusion based on the premises.
The author concludes the workers' claim is without merit because they provided no empirical evidence. The author applies the standard for epistemic justification to a claim of practical justification.
This reveals the core logical flaw: the argument conflates two different senses of the word 'justified'.

Anahtar Kavram

Equivocation (Uncertain Use of a Term)
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Equivocation (Uncertain Use of a Term)

Bu konudan daha fazla soru