Philosophy 1301: Introduction to Philosophy

Review for First Examination
Spring, 2006
Curtis Brown

The first exam is scheduled for Wednesday, February The examination will have two parts. The first part will have relatively short questions that you should be able to answer in about a paragraph. The second part will have longer essay questions that may require several paragraphs to answer. Answers should show familiarity with the text as well as class lectures. Answers will be evaluated on the basis of their clarity, accuracy, completeness, and cogency. The first and second parts will each count for approximately half of the total grade. Bring a blue book!

Terms and concepts you should be familiar with:

argument
deductive argument
validity
soundness
logical form
you should be able to say whether argument forms we have discussed are valid or not (examples: (a) if P then Q; P; therefore Q; (b) if P then Q; not P; therefore not Q; (c) if P then Q; not Q; therefore not P; (d) if P then Q; Q; therefore P; (e) not: (P and Q); therefore (not P or not Q).) For invalid argument forms, you should be able to show that they are invalid by producing a counterexample.
inductive argument
abductive argument
you should be able to say how inductive and abductive arguments are similar and how they are different; should be able to explain conditions that are required for a good inductive or abductive argument.
you should be able to examine a sample argument and say whether (and why) it is deductive, inductive, or abductive.
you should be able to examine a sample argument and say whether it is a good argument or a bad argument, and why
surprise principle
"only game in town" fallacy
first-cause (cosmological) argument
"birthday fallacy"
teleological argument (argument from design)
natural selection (requires (a) variations among organisms that (b) are inherited and (c) affect fitness)
global vs. local why-questions
natural phenomena vs. supernatural phenomena
metaphysical naturalism
methodological naturalism
ontological argument
a priori vs. a posteriori propositions
analytic sentence
testability theory of meaningfulness
direct vs. indirect testability
auxiliary assumptions
expected utility
wager argument
problem of evil
object knowledge, propositional knowledge, know-how knowledge
you should be able to give examples that show that knowledge is not justified true belief
necessary and sufficient conditions (you should know how necessary and sufficient conditions are related to sentences of the form "if P, then Q" and also how they are related to the problems of a definition being too broad or too narrow)
dreaming argument (Descartes)
evil genius argument (Descartes)

essay questions

Essay questions will ask you to explain and evaluate an argument we have discussed in class. To explain an argument, you should say what the premises are, what the conclusion is, what sort of argument it is, and how the premises are supposed to support the conclusion. To evaluate the argument, you need to consider objections to the argument and explain why you think they are or are not justified. An objection to an argument may be either a reason to think one or more of the premises is false, or a reason to think that the premises do not support the conclusion.

Essay questions may be either general (for example: "Explain Aquinas's cosmological or first-cause argument. Then explain and evaluate two of the objections to the argument discussed in class and/or the text") or more specific (for example: "explain and evaluate the free will response to the problem of evil").

Last update: February 3, 2006.
Curtis Brown | Introduction to Philosophy | Philosophy Department | Trinity University
cbrown@trinity.edu

Philosophy 1301: Introduction to Philosophy

Review for First Examination Spring, 2006 Curtis Brown

Review for First Examination
Spring, 2006
Curtis Brown