Case Study: Week 1
Franca Thomas
PHIL 347: Critical Reasoning
Professor Bret Fuller
Chamberlain School of Nursing

Case Study: Week 1

Identify the main point and the supporting points of each argument:

1. Throughout history, people have disagreed about moral issues. This isn’t true about science, because science is objective, and people can come to objective agreements. If morality is not like science, and science is objective, morality must be subjective. Morality, then, is just a matter of opinion.

Main point: If morality is not like science, and science is objective, morality must be subjective.

Supporting points: Throughout history, people have disagreed about moral issues. This isn’t true about science, because science is objective, and people can come to objective agreements. Morality, then, is just a matter of opinion.

2. We should help people that are starving in other countries. We have plenty of things that we can share without adversely affecting our own lives, and we are morally obligated to help people who are less fortunate than us if we can do so without giving up anything of comparable importance to the aid that we are giving. Main point: We should help people that are starving in other countries.

Supporting points: We have plenty of things that we can share without adversely affecting our own lives, and we are morally obligated to help people who are less fortunate than us if we can do so without giving up anything of comparable importance to the aid that we are giving.

Identify the premises and conclusion in the following arguments:

1. Since large corporations make more money than small businesses, we should tax them at a higher rate than we tax small businesses. This is because everyone should contribute to society according to his ability.

Premises: Since large corporations make more money