Question 1: Why is it important to reesnstruet-arguments-in-standard-ferm carefully analyze arguments? (Hint: this is related to what the authors say in "the process of thinking about moral arguments", but it pops up throughout the chapter as well). (Expected length: three to four sentences, that clearly and accurately explain what the authors say about this.) Note that reconstructing arguments in standard form is a key aspect of analyzing arguments, but as one student identified, this chapter doesn't talk about reconstructing arguments in standard form. So you don't need to say anything about reconstructing in standard form here; just know that reconstructing arguments in standard form is part of analyzing arguments!
Question 2: Explain, in your own words, the role of scientific evidence in moral arguments. (Expected length: about four sentences, to identify what positive contributions scientific evidence make and what limitations, if any, scientific evidence.
Question 3: Is the following argument a moral argument or not? Briefly explain your answer (expected length: you might be able to do it in one clear sentence, but probably two to three sentences.)
- Voter intimidation (intimidating someone to get them to vote for a particular candidate or to prevent them from voting) is illegal.
- Impersonating an election official to falsely convince someone they don't have the right kind of ID to vote is voter intimidation.
- Therefore, impersonating an election official to falsely convince someone they don't have the right kind of ID to vote is illegal.