Analytical Thinking Assessment Questions. (Usyd) free essay sample

Extensive definition is useful where words are difficult to define verbally. E. G. Defining yellow by pointing at yellow beetles or bananas. However, extensive deflation Is not an extensively used term, and Is unlikely to be understood as well as direct definition, and some people may not recognize or understand the examples pointed out by the definer. 9. A) No counter example as games need rules in order to be a game. However the necessary Is too broad as schools, libraries etc. Have rules but is not a game.B) X can be guilty due to emotional guilt of hurting someones feelings or bullying, lying to family and friends. This counter example shows its too narrow. C) X can be a person 1 OFF 10. Its not valid because the premise states that the bread eaten yesterday was safe, ND the second premise states that all the bread the have consumed was safe. We will write a custom essay sample on Analytical Thinking Assessment Questions. (Usyd) or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The conclusion is not valid with the premise. Argument: All bread I have eaten was safe. Tomorrows bread will be the same as all the previous bread I have eaten. Therefore tomorrows bread will be safe. 12.Golden mean fallacy: Allowing people to smoke outside public premises but not inside is the right thing to do because it represents a middle position in the debate about smoking in our society. Is a golden mean fallacy because the argument the person made is the middle ground between people being forced to smoke or ban people from smoking. Fallacious appeal to authority: The Minister for Health said that as smoking is responsible for the greatest proportion of preventable cancers, the reduction of passive smoking was one of the most effective public health interventions the government could make.Its not fallacious because the person of authority is relevant as he is the minister of health. His testimony is therefore sufficient to establish the conclusion of the argument. Straw person fallacy: Some of the finest Australians smoked all their lives. Bill Hunter was one of Australias finest actors and he smoked throughout his life. Why cant the government Just leave people alone? Abusive Ad Hominid: The Minister for Health Just says these things because that is what ministers of health are supposed to say these days in the nanny state Australia has become. The person attacks the minister Circumstantial Ad Hominid: If the government wants to ban smoking it should ban the production of cigarettes rather than their consumption. But governments are always too spineless to confront industry and too greedy for the revenue from taxes on cigarettes. The person attacks the claims of the government not banning the production of cigarettes instead of smoking due to the governments desire for money from the revenue made from taxes on cigarettes.Fallacious slippery slope: If we accept the implementation of this proposal we know what to expect next: one by one our rights to the peaceful consumption of legal products will be removed until we can neither smoke nor eat nor drink any of the things that, somehow, we are still able to purchase no smoke today and no smoky bacon tomorrow. It is fallacious because people can accept the implementation of the proposal however it does not mean that their rights will be removed.