{"number":10774,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The predicate \"Txy\" means \"x teaches y\". Therefore, \"David teaches Chris\" should be translated as \"David (d) teaches (T) Chris (c)\", which corresponds to \"Tdc\".\nAnswer: A","question":"Select the best translation into predicate logic. David teaches Chris. (c: Chris; d: David; Txy: x teaches y)","choices":["Tdc","Tcc","cTd","cTc","dTdc","dTc","Tcd","Tdd","dTcd","cTdd"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10775,"response":"To determine the logical relationship between the two propositions, we need to construct a complete truth table and analyze the results. Let's break down each proposition and then create the truth table.\n\n1. Proposition 1: \\((~M ⊃ ~N) ∨ (O ≡ N)\\)\n2. Proposition 2: \\((~M · N) · [(~O ∨ ~N) · (O ∨ N)]\\)\n\nFirst, let's define the components:\n- \\(~M\\): Not M\n- \\(~N\\): Not N\n- \\(O ≡ N\\): O if and only if N (O is equivalent to N)\n- \\(~M ⊃ ~N\\): If not M then not N\n- \\(~O ∨ ~N\\): Not O or not N\n- \\(O ∨ N\\): O or N\n\nNow, let's construct the truth table for all possible truth values of M, N, and O.\n\n| M | N | O | ~M | ~N | O ≡ N | ~M ⊃ ~N | (~M ⊃ ~N) ∨ (O ≡ N) | ~O ∨ ~N | O ∨ N | (~O ∨ ~N) · (O ∨ N) | (~M · N) · [(~O ∨ ~N) · (O ∨ N)] |\n|---|---|---|----|----|-------|---------|----------------------|---------|-------|---------------------|----------------------------------|\n| T | T | T |  F |  F |   T   |    T    |          T           |    F    |   T   |          F          |                F                 |\n| T | T | F |  F |  F |   F   |    T    |          T           |    T    |   T   |          T          |                F                 |\n| T | F | T |  F |  T |   F   |    T    |          T           |    F    |   T   |          F          |                F                 |\n| T | F | F |  F |  T |   T   |    T    |          T           |    T    |   F   |          F          |                F                 |\n| F|T|T|T|F|T|F|T|F|T|F|F|\n|F|T|F|T|F|F|T|T|T|T|T|\n|(F)|F|(T)|(T)|(F)|(T)|(T)|(T)|(F)|(T)|(F)|\n|(F)|(F)|(F)|(T)|(T)|(T)| (T)| (T)| (T)| (F)| (F)|\n\nFrom the truth table, we can see that there are no rows where both propositions have the same truth value in every case. Therefore, they are neither logically equivalent nor contradictory.\n\nNext, we check for consistency:\n- Two propositions are consistent if there is at least one row in which both are true.\n- Two propositions are inconsistent if there is no row in which both are true.\n\nFrom the truth table, we see that there is no row where both propositions are true simultaneously. Therefore, they are inconsistent.\n\nAnswer: H","question":" Construct a complete truth table for the following pairs of propositions. Then, using the truth tables, determine whether the statements are logically equivalent or contradictory. If neither, determine whether they are consistent or inconsistent. Justify your answers.\n(~M ⊃ ~N) ∨ (O ≡ N) and (~M · N) · [(~O ∨ ~N) · (O ∨ N)]","choices":["Both logically equivalent and consistent","Both consistent and contradictory","Both logically equivalent and contradictory","Contradictory","Neither logically equivalent nor contradictory, but inconsistent","Logically equivalent","Both inconsistent and contradictory","Inconsistent","Neither logically equivalent nor contradictory, but consistent","Neither logically equivalent nor inconsistent, but contradictory"],"correct":"D","answer":"H","score":0}
{"number":10776,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. We need to find an immediate (one-step) consequence of the given premises.\n\nGiven premises:\n1. \\( U \\supset W \\)\n2. \\( W \\supset (X \\equiv \\sim Y) \\)\n3. \\( (X \\equiv \\sim Y) \\supset Z \\)\n4. \\( \\sim Z \\)\n\nFrom premise 4 (\\( \\sim Z \\)), we can infer that \\( (X \\equiv \\sim Y) \\) must be false because if it were true, then \\( Z \\) would be true, contradicting premise 4. Therefore, \\( (X \\equiv \\sim Y) \\) is false, which is represented as \\( \\sim (X \\equiv \\sim Y) \\).\n\nAnswer: I","question":" Which of the following propositions is an immediate (one-step) consequence in PL of the given premises?\nU ⊃ W\nW ⊃ (X ≡ ~Y)\n(X ≡ ~Y) ⊃ Z\n~Z","choices":["~W ∨ Z","U ⊃ Z","~W","~U","U ∨ W","~(U ⊃ W)","Z ∨ W","~Z ⊃ W","~(X ≡ ~Y)","(X ≡ ~Y) ∨ Z"],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":10777,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"Holly loves Frances\" can be translated into predicate logic using the given notation where \"Lxy\" means \"x loves y.\" Here, Holly (h) is the one who loves, and Frances (f) is the one being loved. Therefore, the correct translation is \"Lhf.\"\nAnswer: A","question":"Select the best translation into predicate logic. Holly loves Frances. (f: Frances; h: Holly; Lxy: x loves y)","choices":["Lhf","hLf","hLh","Lfh","LfLh","fLhL","fLf","hLfL","fLh","LfhL"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10778,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The statement \"Earth isn't bigger than Jupiter\" can be translated into predicate logic as the negation of \"Earth is bigger than Jupiter\". Using the given notation, \"Earth is bigger than Jupiter\" is represented as \"Bej\". Therefore, the negation of this statement is \"~Bej\".\nAnswer: E","question":"Select the best translation into predicate logic. Earth isn't bigger than Jupiter. (e: Earth; j: Jupiter; Bxy: x is bigger than y)","choices":["j~Be","Be~j","Bej","~eBj","~Bej","e~Bj","~Bje","B~ej","~jBe","Bje~"],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":10779,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"All birds live in some nest\" can be translated into predicate logic as follows: For every bird x, there exists a nest y such that x lives in y. This can be expressed as:\n\n(∀x)[Bx ⊃ (∃y)(Ny • Lxy)]\n\nThis means that for every x, if x is a bird, then there exists a y such that y is a nest and x lives in y.\n\nAnswer: I","question":" Select the best translation into predicate logic. All birds live in some nest. (Bx: x is a bird; Nx: x is a nest; Lxy: x lives in y)","choices":["(∃x)[Bx ⊃ (∃y)(Ny • Lxy)]","(∀x)[(Bx • Ny) ⊃ Lxy]","(∀x)(∃y)[(Bx • Ny) ⊃ Lxy]","(∃x)(∀y)[(Bx • Ny) ⊃ Lxy]","(∀x)(∃y)[(Bx ⊃ Ny) • Lxy]","(∀x)[(∃y)(Bx • Ny) ⊃ Lxy]","(∀x)(∀y)[(Bx • Ny) ⊃ Lxy]","(∀x)[(∃y)(Ny • Bx) ⊃ Lxy]","(∀x)[Bx ⊃ (∃y)(Ny • Lxy)]","(∀x)[Bx ⊃ (∀y)(Ny • Lxy)]"],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":10780,"response":"Explanation: Let's use indirect truth tables to determine the validity of the argument. An indirect truth table involves assuming that the conclusion is false and checking if this assumption leads to a contradiction with the premises.\n\nGiven:\n1. \\( L \\supset [(M \\lor \\neg N) \\supset O] \\)\n2. \\( (N \\supset O) \\supset (\\neg P \\supset Q) \\)\n3. \\( R \\supset \\neg Q \\)\nConclusion: \\( L \\supset (R \\supset P) \\)\n\nAssume the conclusion is false:\n\\( L = T \\) and \\( R = T \\) and \\( P = F \\)\n\nNow, let's check if this assumption leads to a contradiction with the premises:\n\n1. \\( L = T \\implies [(M \\lor \\neg N) \\supset O] = T \\)\n   - This means \\( (M \\lor \\neg N) \\supset O = T\\)\n   - For this to be true, either \\( M \\lor \\neg N = F\\) or \\(O = T\\)\n\n2. \\( (N = T\\) and \\( O = F\\)) implies:\n   - \\( (N \\supset O) = F\\), which makes the premise true if \\( (N = T\\) and \\(O = F\\))\n   - This implies that \\( (\\neg P = T\\)) and \\(Q = F\\)\n\n3. Given \\( R = T\\), we have:\n   - \\( R \\supset Q = F\\), which contradicts our assumption that Q is false.\n\nThus, we have found a counterexample where:\n- L, N, and R are true\n- M, O, P, and Q are false\n\nThis matches option D.\n\nAnswer: D","question":" Use indirect truth tables to determine whether the following argument is valid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\nL ⊃ [(M ∨ ~N) ⊃ O]\n(N ⊃ O) ⊃ (~P ⊃ Q)\nR ⊃ ~Q / L ⊃ (R ⊃ P)","choices":["Valid","Invalid. Counterexample when L, M, O, Q, and R are true and N and P are false","Invalid. Counterexample when L, N, O, Q, and R are true and M and P are false","Invalid. Counterexample when L, N, and R are true and M, O, P, and Q are false"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10781,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logic and argument structure for help. The conclusion of an argument is the statement that the premises are intended to support or prove. In this argument, the statement that is being supported by the premises is \"It is wrong for society to kill a murderer.\" The other statements provide reasons or premises to support this conclusion.\n\nAnswer: J","question":"Identify the conclusion of the following argument. Remember to remove any conclusion indicators. It is wrong for society to kill a murderer. This follows for the reason that if a murderer is wrong in killing his victim, then society is also wrong in killing the murderer. And a murderer is wrong in killing his victim.","choices":["A murderer is not wrong in killing his victim.","If a murderer is right in killing his victim, then society is also right in killing the murderer.","And a murderer is wrong in killing his victim.","This does not follow for the reason that if a murderer is wrong in killing his victim, then society is also wrong in killing the murderer.","And a murderer is not wrong in killing his victim.","This follows for the reason that if a murderer is wrong in killing his victim, then society is also wrong in killing the murderer.","If a murderer is wrong in killing his victim, then society is also wrong in killing the murderer.","Society is not wrong in killing the murderer.","A murderer is right in killing his victim.","It is wrong for society to kill a murderer."],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":10782,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy and ethics for help. According to Jeffrey Reiman, van den Haag's argument, which supports the death penalty as a deterrent, ultimately leads to the conclusion that if the death penalty is justified for its deterrent effect, then even more severe forms of punishment, such as death by torture, could be justified if they were shown to be even more effective as deterrents. Reiman argues against this conclusion by suggesting that refraining from such extreme punishments has a civilizing effect on society.\n\nAnswer: D","question":" According to Reiman, van den Haag's argument leads to the conclusion that","choices":["we should refrain from imposing the death penalty.","the death penalty is a necessary evil.","murder is wrong.","we should institute death by torture.","capital punishment serves as a deterrent.","society should be more lenient towards criminals.","we should abolish all forms of punishment.","the death penalty is the ultimate form of justice.","criminals should be given a chance to reform.","the refusal to execute criminals has a civilizing effect."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10783,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the context of Ashford's article, which addresses a specific paralysis in the face of global issues. The article is focused on the overwhelming responsibility and the sheer scope of global poverty, which can paralyze individuals and policymakers from taking action.\n\nAnswer: H","question":" Ashford's article is meant to address a particular paralysis in the face of","choices":["the daunting task of solving worldwide economic imbalance.","the impossibility of meeting everyone's basic needs.","having to give up so much of our own wealth in light of Singer's arguments.","having to choose between addressing immediate harm and addressing structural injustice.","reconciling conflict moral theories.","the difficult task of prioritizing multiple global issues.","the challenge of implementing sustainable solutions to poverty.","the sheer scope of global poverty.","the overwhelming responsibility of addressing world hunger.","the complexity of addressing environmental issues globally."],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":10784,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Jeffrey Reiman critiques Ernest van den Haag's arguments in favor of the death penalty, particularly highlighting that they are flawed due to a lack of empirical evidence supporting the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Therefore, the correct choice is:\nAnswer: B","question":" According to Reiman, van den Haag's arguments in favor of the death penalty","choices":["are not based on logical reasoning.","are flawed due to lack of empirical evidence.","contradict the principles of human rights.","follow common sense.","are based on biased principles.","should be accepted.","prove that torture is morally impermissible.","are based on the concept of retribution.","promote the idea of capital punishment.","are incompatible with the right to retaliation."],"correct":"D","answer":"B","score":0}
{"number":10785,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to authoritative sources on bioethics for help. Pence's main objective in his article \"Will Cloning Harm People?\" is to challenge the common consequentialist arguments against cloning and argue that these arguments do not provide sufficient grounds to deem cloning immoral. Therefore, the correct answer is:\nAnswer: G","question":" What is Pence's main objective in his article \"Will Cloning Harm People?\"","choices":["to use Kant's humanity formulation to show that cloning is morally acceptable","to argue for the potential benefits of cloning","to use consequentialist arguments to show that cloning is immoral","to use virtue ethics to prove that cloning is morally unacceptable","to use Kant's humanity formulation to show that cloning is immoral","to use utilitarian arguments to show that cloning is immoral","to object to consequentialist arguments against cloning","to argue that cloning is ethically neutral","to object to Kant's humanity formulation arguments against cloning","to use consequentialist arguments to prove that cloning is morally acceptable"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10786,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on bioethics and the works of Peter Singer for help. Peter Singer, a prominent bioethicist, often discusses pragmatic approaches to ethical issues. If a global ban on genetic engineering is not effective, he might suggest a more practical and enforceable strategy. Among the given options, developing a global regulatory body to monitor and control genetic engineering activities aligns with his pragmatic approach to ensuring ethical practices.\n\nAnswer: G","question":" If a global ban would not be effective in prohibiting genetic engineering that goes beyond eliminating obvious defects, then Singer suggests which \"bolder\" strategy?","choices":["none of the above","using a lottery system so everyone gets a fair chance at the benefits of genetic engineering","using sanctions and trade restrictions against countries that violate the ban","allowing genetic engineering only for medical purposes","promoting genetic engineering only for the wealthy","creating a global consensus on acceptable genetic engineering practices","developing a global regulatory body to monitor and control genetic engineering activities","implementing a global education program to convince people of the dangers of excessive genetic engineering","requiring genetic engineering for every newborn child","creating a world military that would enforce the ban with greater strength"],"correct":"B","answer":"G","score":0}
{"number":10787,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics and moral philosophy for help. Collins suggests that the moral value of caring actions comes from the intrinsic value of caring attitudes which motivate caring actions.\nAnswer: F","question":" Collins suggests that the moral value of caring actions comes from","choices":["the cost-effectiveness of caring actions in terms of resources expended.","the non-instrumental value of caring actions as manifestations of intrinsic goods for person like love and forgiveness.","the value assigned to the action by the person performing the caring act.","how well any caring actions fulfills the recipient's interests and the strength of one's intention to fulfill the recipient's interest.","the balance between the intention and the actual outcome of the caring actions.","the intrinsic value of caring attitudes which motivate caring actions.","the impact of the actions on the overall well-being of the society.","the degree to which those actions align with societal norms and expectations.","the extent to which the actions are recognized and appreciated by others.","the degree to which those actions produces the greatest amount of happiness in the recipient of care."],"correct":"D","answer":"F","score":0}
{"number":10788,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on cosmopolitanism for help. The most common form of cosmopolitanism that emphasizes the obligation to assist those in need and promote basic human rights is moral cosmopolitanism.\nAnswer: E","question":" The most common form of cosmopolitanism is _____ cosmopolitanism, according to which those in a position to do so have an obligation to assist those in need because of poverty and to promote basic human rights.","choices":["political","humanitarian","philosophical","universal","moral","economic","ethical","social","global","cultural"],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":10790,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics for help. The principle Arthur calls \"the greater moral evil rule\" suggests that people are morally obligated to share their wealth if it can prevent a greater evil.\nAnswer: E","question":" The principle Arthur calls \"the greater moral evil rule\"says that","choices":["morality itself is a great evil.","people should always strive to commit the lesser evil, even if it results in personal gain.","the person who commits the greater evil is the one who is morally responsible for the situation.","people are entitled to keep their earnings only if there is no way for them to prevent a greater evil by giving them away.","people are morally obligated to share their wealth if it can prevent a greater evil.","being rich is a great moral evil, and as such we should all strive to live on a moderate income.","the greater moral evil rule is a concept which states that it's always wrong to do evil, regardless of the circumstances.","two moral evils do not make a moral good.","people are allowed to do a smaller evil to prevent a greater one.","the concept of evil is subjective and varies from person to person."],"correct":"D","answer":"E","score":0}
{"number":10791,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. W.D. Ross, a critic of utilitarianism, argues that it fails to account for the personal character of duty and moral obligations that arise from specific relationships and commitments.\nAnswer: I","question":" Ross claims that the essential defect of utilitarianism is that it ignores","choices":["the significance of moral intentions.","epistemological responsibility.","the role of virtue in morality.","the value of pleasure.","the importance of individual rights.","the potential consequences of actions.","the concept of justice.","moral obligations.","the personal character of duty.","autonomy."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":10792,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on political philosophy for help. Christopher Heath Wellman is known for defending the position that nation-states have a presumptive right to close their borders to all potential immigrants, based on the principle of freedom of association.\nAnswer: A","question":" Christopher Heath Wellman defends the position that","choices":["nation-states have a presumptive right to close their borders to all potential immigrants.","nation-states have an obligation to close their borders to protect their own citizens.","closing borders to all potential immigrations is an inherently racist social policy.","anti-egalitarianism is incompatible with liberal cosmopolitanism.","anti-egalitarianism is compatible with liberal cosmopolitanism.","nation-states have an obligation to open their borders to the least well-off potential immigrants.","all borders should be entirely open, with no restrictions on immigration.","the concept of nation-states should be abolished in favor of a global government.","potential immigrants have a presumptive right to cross any border they choose.","nation-states should prioritize their own citizens' needs over potential immigrants."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10793,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Kantian ethics for help. According to Kant, an imperative that represents an action as a necessary means to something that is willed is called a hypothetical imperative. Hypothetical imperatives are conditional and depend on a person's desire or goal.\n\nAnswer: D","question":" According to Kant, an imperative that represents an action as a necessary means to something that is willed is what kind of imperative?","choices":["categorical","autonomous","consequential","hypothetical","practical","noumenal","moral","universalizable","conditional","theoretical"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10794,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the context provided about Ali Soufan's testimony and writings. Soufan has consistently argued that traditional interrogation techniques are effective and that enhanced interrogation techniques (often considered torture) are not only ineffective but also harmful. He has testified that actionable intelligence was obtained without the use of torture and that the use of harsh techniques was a mistake.\n\nAnswer: C","question":" Baron cites a summary of Ali Soufan's Senate testimony to suggest that","choices":["torture is always wrong without exception.","torture is the most effective method of interrogation.","successful interrogation may not require torture.","all successful interrogations involve some form of torture.","Ali Soufan was subjected to torture during his testimony.","Ali Soufan denounced the use of torture entirely in his testimony.","endorsing a single act of torture requires endorsing torture as a practice.","Ali Soufan supports the use of torture in interrogation.","torture can be ethically justified in some situations.","torture works in only limited situations."],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10795,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Jainism for help. In Jain traditions, caityavasis were monks who lived in temples (caityas). They are known as temple-dwelling renouncers.\nAnswer: G","question":" According to Jaina traditions, who were the caityavasis?","choices":["Monks who lived in forests","Jain kings who patronized the faith","Orthodox interpreters of the scriptures","Monks who performed public acts of penance","Women ascetics who lived in communities","Lay followers who lived in cities","Temple-dwelling renouncers","Ascetics who lived in isolation","Householders who supported renouncers","Practitioners of the highest form of asceticism"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10796,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on historical events for help. The Babylonian captivity, also known as the Babylonian Exile, began in 586 BCE when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem and deported many of the Jewish inhabitants to Babylon.\nAnswer: G","question":"When did the Babylonian captivity of \"Exile\" begin?","choices":["333 BCE","1066 CE","535 BCE","515 BCE","1914 CE","1492 CE","586 BCE","722 BCE","70 CE","70 BCE"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10797,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Buddhism for help. The \"Flower Sermon\" is a story associated with the origins of Zen Buddhism, which is known as Chan in China.\nAnswer: D","question":"The \"Flower Sermon\" is associated with which form of Buddhism?","choices":["Nichiren","Jodo Shinshu","Theravada","Chan-Zen","Pure Land","Tibetan","Shingon","Vajrayana","Yogicara","Tendai"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10798,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. A hasty conclusion is a fallacy where someone jumps to a conclusion without sufficient evidence. The term \"jumping to a conclusion\" is synonymous with this type of fallacy.\nAnswer: D","question":"Another name for hasty conclusion is","choices":["false cause","red herring","argumentum ad populum","jumping to a conclusion","ad novitatem","slippery slope","straw man fallacy","post hoc ergo prompter hoc","ad hominem"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10799,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy of reprehensible personality is a specific type of ad hominem fallacy, where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character of the person making the argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. This does not fit with any of the options provided directly, but it is most closely related to \"Begging the question\" and \"Circular reasoning,\" as both involve flawed argumentative structures. However, neither perfectly matches \"reprehensible personality.\" Given these choices, \"Begging the question\" (C) might be considered the next best fit due to its nature of assuming what it attempts to prove, which can sometimes involve personal attacks.\n\nAnswer: C","question":"The fallacy of reprehensible personality is a specific type of","choices":["the fallacy of accident","False dilemma","Begging the question","Circular reasoning"],"correct":"A","answer":"C","score":0}
{"number":10800,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy described involves attacking the character or personal traits of an individual rather than engaging with their argument or actions. This is known as an ad hominem fallacy.\nAnswer: F","question":"Arguing that someone couldn't have done something good because he is incapable of doing good commits the fallacy of","choices":["Straw man","Accident","False dilemma","Circular reasoning","Red herring","Ad hominem","Hasty generalization","Begging the question","Slippery slope","False dichotomy"],"correct":"H","answer":"F","score":0}
{"number":10801,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy of accident, also known as a sweeping generalization, occurs when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover.\nAnswer: E","question":"Another name for the fallacy of accident is","choices":["False dichotomy","Ad hominem","Black-or-white fallacy","Slippery slope","Sweeping generalization","Appeal to ignorance","Straw man argument","False dilemma","Petitio principii","Red herring"],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":10802,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. Hasty generalization is also known as \"secundum quid\" or \"anecdotal evidence.\" However, \"secundum quid\" is the more formal term used in logic.\n\nAnswer: D","question":"Another name for hasty generalization is","choices":["straw man","ad populum","post hoc fallacy","secundum quid","ad crumenam","ad hominem","anecdotal evidence","red herring","false criteria","circular reasoning"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10803,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy described is when an argument criticizes something for not fulfilling a purpose it was never meant to fulfill, which is known as the \"straw man\" fallacy or more specifically, the \"fallacy of extension.\" This fallacy occurs when someone takes an argument and extends it to a point where it becomes easier to attack.\n\nAnswer: C","question":"If you argued something is flawed because it fails to do something, when it was never intended to do that, you may have committed which of the following fallacies?","choices":["ad ignorantium","Many questions","Extension","Compound proposition"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10805,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The straw person (or straw man) fallacy involves misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack. This is described in option B, where one claims the opponent has taken a position that they have not, then defeats that misrepresented position and claims to have refuted the original argument.\nAnswer: B","question":"Which of the following describes the straw person fallacy?","choices":["arguing someone should do something only because it will make him or her better liked","saying an opposing arguer has taken a position that you can easily defeat, when he or she has not taken that position, then going on to defeat that position and claim to have done significant damage to that arguer's overall argument","attacking the character or background of an opposing arguer instead of responding to that person's arguments with good evidence and sound reasoni","responding to an argument with an expression of derision instead of a counter argument"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10806,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to Immanuel Kant, the only thing that can be called \"good\" without qualification is a good will.\nAnswer: A","question":"According to Kant, nothing can be called “good” without qualification except _____.","choices":["a good will","self-interest","justice","right action","good consequences","virtue","reason","happiness","pleasure","moral duty"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10807,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. George Berkeley, an idealist philosopher, argued that heat and cold are not physical objects but rather sensations that exist only in our minds.\nAnswer: C","question":"Berkeley insists that heat and cold are _____.","choices":["elements of nature that do not exist independently","only things existing apart from our minds","only sensations existing in our minds","physical objects","manifestations of our subconscious","only sensations existing outside our minds","not real unless they are observed","illusions","types of energy","purely subjective and not measurable"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10808,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. R.M. Hare, a prominent moral philosopher, is known for his work in ethical theory and prescriptivism. He does not claim that all moral arguments are useless, valid, or sound universally. However, he does argue that moral arguments often involve ad hominem elements because they appeal to the preferences and principles of the individuals involved.\n\nAnswer: C","question":"Hare claims that all moral arguments are:","choices":["useless.","valid.","ad hominem.","sound."],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10809,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Joseph Butler, an 18th-century philosopher and theologian, is known for his ethical writings and sermons. However, he did not explicitly claim that the only thing anyone has a right to is one specific thing among the options listed. Given the context of his work, which often focused on human nature and moral obligations rather than rights in a strict sense, none of the provided options perfectly align with his claims.\n\nAnswer: I. N/A","question":"Butler claims that, strictly speaking, the only thing that anyone has a right to is:","choices":["justice.","security.","liberty.","freedom of speech.","life.","education.","property.","equality.","happiness.","health."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":10810,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. According to Epicurus, the wealth required for a good life is limited and easily procured. He emphasized that true happiness comes from simple pleasures, limiting desires, and achieving tranquility, rather than accumulating material wealth.\n\nAnswer: A","question":"According to Epicurus, the wealth required for a good life is:","choices":["easily procured.","available only to the educated.","available only to the rich.","obtained only through the accumulation of material possessions.","achievable only through constant labor and struggle.","attainable for everyone, but only through great effort.","gained only through inheritance or luck.","not necessary for a good life.","available only to the gods.","requiring a lifetime of pursuit."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10811,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. According to Aristotle, both virtue and vice are within our control because they result from our actions and choices. This is a fundamental aspect of his ethical theory, which emphasizes moral responsibility.\n\nAnswer: B","question":"Aristotle claims that:","choices":["vice is in our power, but virtue is not.","virtue is in our power, and so is vice.","vice is in our power, and so is virtue.","both virtue and vice are not in our power.","virtue is in our power, but vice is not.","neither virtue nor vice is in our power.","neither virtue nor vice are within our control.","virtue is not in our power, but vice is.","virtue is in our power, but vice is within our control.","vice is in our power, but virtue is within our control."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10812,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on moral luck for help. Constitutive moral luck refers to the aspects of a person's character, temperament, and personality that are influenced by factors beyond their control. Bad constitutive moral luck would involve having negative traits or tendencies that one did not choose. Among the options, \"a person who is by nature envious and ungenerous\" fits this description as it involves inherent negative traits.\n\nAnswer: I","question":"One example of bad constitutive moral luck would be:","choices":["a person who donates to charity regularly.","all of the above.","a person who lived in Nazi Germany in 1940.","a person who drives drunk and hits a child.","none of the above.","a person who is naturally kind and generous.","a person who lived in the United States in the 1960s.","a person who drives carefully and avoids accidents.","a person who is by nature envious and ungenerous.","a person who lives in a peaceful, affluent country."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":10813,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. Let’s solve this step by step.\n\n1. The argument is:\n   - Premise 1: \\( H \\equiv (\\sim I \\lor J) \\)\n   - Premise 2: \\( H \\lor \\sim J \\)\n   - Conclusion: \\( \\sim I \\)\n\n2. To use an indirect truth table, we assume the premises are true and the conclusion is false, then look for a contradiction.\n\n3. Assume \\( \\sim I \\) is false, which means \\( I \\) is true.\n\n4. Now check if the premises can both be true with \\( I \\) being true:\n   - If \\( I \\) is true, then \\( \\sim I \\) is false.\n   - For \\( H \\equiv (\\sim I \\lor J) \\) to be true, \\( H \\) must be equivalent to \\( (\\sim I \\lor J) \\). Since \\( \\sim I \\) is false, this simplifies to \\( H \\equiv J \\).\n   - For \\( H \\lor \\sim J \\) to be true:\n     - If \\( J \\) is true, then \\( H\\) must be true (since \\( H\\equiv J\\)).\n     - If \\( J\\) is false, then \\( H\\) must be false (since \\( H\\equiv J\\)) and thus \\( ~J\\) must be true.\n\n5. Let's check possible counterexamples:\n   - If \\( J\\) is true and both \\( H\\) and \\( I\\) are false (A), it contradicts our assumption that if \\( J\\) is true, then \\( H\\) must also be true.\n   - If all three are false (C), it contradicts our assumption that if both premises are to hold.\n   - If both are true (D), it contradicts our assumption that if both premises are to hold.\n   - If only one premise holds (E), it contradicts our assumption that if both premises are to hold.\n   - If all three are false (G), it contradicts our assumption that if both premises are to hold.\n   - If all three are true (H), it contradicts our assumption that if both premises are to hold.\n\n6. Therefore, the argument is invalid when:\nAnswer: G","question":"Use indirect truth tables to determine whether the following argument is valid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\nH ≡ (~I ∨ J)\nH ∨ ~J / ~I","choices":["Invalid. Counterexample when J is true and H and I are false","Valid. No counterexample exists","Invalid. Counterexample when H, I, and J are false","Invalid. Counterexample when H and J are true and I is false","Invalid. Counterexample when H is true, I and J are false","Valid","Invalid. Counterexample when I is true and H and J are false","Invalid. Counterexample when I is false and H and J are true"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10814,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. Let \"Lt\" denote \"Taylor is a latte boy\" and \"Le\" denote \"Eric is a latte boy\". The sentence \"Either Taylor or Eric is a latte boy\" can be translated into predicate logic as \"Lt ∨ Le\".\nAnswer: A","question":"Select the best translation into predicate logic: Either Taylor or Eric is a latte boy.","choices":["Lt ∨ Le","Lx ∨ Ly","Lt ∧ Le","L(t ∧ e)","tL ⊃ eL","tL ∨ eL","Lx ∧ Ly","L(t ∨ e)","E ∨ T","Tl ⊃ El"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10815,"response":"Explanation: Let's use an indirect truth table to determine the validity of the argument. An indirect truth table involves assuming the conclusion is false and checking if this leads to a contradiction with the premises.\n\nGiven:\n1. \\( E \\supset F \\)\n2. \\( G \\supset \\neg F \\)\nConclusion: \\( \\neg G \\lor \\neg E \\)\n\nAssume the conclusion \\( \\neg G \\lor \\neg E \\) is false:\n- This means both \\( G \\) and \\( E \\) must be true (since if either were false, the conclusion would be true).\n\nNow, let's check if this assumption leads to a contradiction with the premises:\n1. If \\( E \\) is true, then by premise 1 (\\( E \\supset F \\)), \\( F \\) must be true.\n2. If \\( G \\) is true, then by premise 2 (\\( G \\supset \\neg F \\)), \\( F \\) must be false.\n\nThis creates a contradiction because \\( F \\) cannot be both true and false at the same time.\n\nTherefore, assuming that the conclusion is false leads to a contradiction with the premises, which means that the argument is valid.\n\nAnswer: E","question":"Use indirect truth tables to determine whether the following argument is valid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\nE ⊃ F\nG ⊃ ~F / ~G ∨ ~E","choices":["Invalid. Counterexample when E, F, and G are true","Invalid. Counterexample when E is true, G is true, and F is true","Invalid. Counterexample when E and G are true and F is false","Invalid. Counterexample when E, F are true and G is false","Valid","Invalid. Counterexample when E is false, G is true, and F is true","Invalid. Counterexample when F and G are true and E is false","Invalid. Counterexample when E, F, and G are all false","Invalid. Counterexample when E is false, G is false, and F is true","Invalid. Counterexample when E is true, G is false, and F is true"],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":10816,"response":"Explanation: Let's break down the sentence into its logical components and translate it step by step.\n\n1. \"England's importing beef is not a necessary condition for France's subsidizing agriculture\":\n   - If E represents \"England imports beef\" and F represents \"France subsidizes agriculture,\" then \"E is not a necessary condition for F\" can be translated as \"~(F ⊃ E)\".\n\n2. \"China promotes human rights if South Africa supplies diamonds\":\n   - If C represents \"China promotes human rights\" and S represents \"South Africa supplies diamonds,\" then this can be translated as \"S ⊃ C\".\n\nCombining these two parts with an \"or\" (∨) gives us:\n~(F ⊃ E) ∨ (S ⊃ C)\n\nAnswer: B","question":" Which of the given formulas of PL is the best symbolization of the following sentence?\nEither England's importing beef is not a necessary condition for France's subsidizing agriculture, or China promotes human rights if South Africa supplies diamonds.","choices":["(E ⊃ ~F) ∨ (S ≡ C)","~(F ⊃ E) ∨ (S ⊃ C)","~(F ⊃ E) ∨ (C ⊃ ~S)","(~E ⊃ F) ∨ (S ⊃ C)","(~F ⊃ E) ∨ (C ≡ ~S)","(~F ⊃ E) ∨ (C ≡ S)","(F ⊃ E) ∨ (~C ⊃ S)","~(F ⊃ ~E) ∨ (S ⊃ C)","(~E ⊃ F) ∨ (C ⊃ S)","(E ⊃ F) ∨ (C ⊃ S)"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10817,"response":"Explanation: Let's construct the truth table step by step. We need to evaluate the premises and conclusion for all possible truth values of I and J.\n\n1. **Premises**:\n   - \\( I \\equiv \\neg J \\)\n   - \\( I \\lor J \\)\n\n2. **Conclusion**:\n   - \\( I \\)\n\nLet's list all possible truth values for I and J, and then evaluate the premises and conclusion.\n\n| I | J | \\( \\neg J \\) | \\( I \\equiv \\neg J \\) | \\( I \\lor J \\) | Conclusion: \\( I \\) |\n|---|---|-------------|----------------------|---------------|---------------------|\n| T | T |      F      |          F           |       T       |         T           |\n| T | F |      T      |          T           |       T       |         T           |\n| F | T |      F      |          T           |       T       |         F           |\n| F | F |      T      |          F           |       F       |         F           |\n\nNow, let's check the validity of the argument by comparing the rows where both premises are true with the conclusion:\n\n- In the first row (I = T, J = T), \\( I \\equiv \\neg J \\) is false, so this row does not affect validity.\n- In the second row (I = T, J = F), both premises (\\( I \\equiv \\neg J = T \\) and \\( I \\lor J = T \\)) are true, and the conclusion (\\( I = T \\)) is also true.\n- In the third row (I = F, J = T), both premises (\\( I \\equiv \\neg J = T \\) and \\( I \\lor J = T \\)) are true, but the conclusion (\\( I = F \\)) is false. This provides a counterexample.\n- In the fourth row (I = F, J = F), \\( I \\lor J = F\\), so this row does not affect validity.\n\nSince there is a counterexample in the third row where both premises are true but the conclusion is false, the argument is invalid.\n\nAnswer: G","question":"Construct a complete truth table for the following argument. Then, using the truth table, determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\nI ≡ ~J\nI ∨ J / I","choices":["Valid. The argument is a contradiction","Invalid. Counterexample when I and J are true","Valid","Invalid. Counterexample when both I and J are false","Valid. The argument is tautological","Invalid. Counterexample when I is true and J is false","Invalid. Counterexample when I is false and J is true","Invalid. Counterexample when J is true and I is false","Invalid. Counterexample when I is false and J is false","Valid. No counterexample exists"],"correct":"H","answer":"G","score":0}
{"number":10818,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"Since the university raised tuition, the president approved of it and the board didn't prevent it\" can be broken down into two parts: \n\n1. \"the university raised tuition\" (U)\n2. \"the president approved of it and the board didn't prevent it\" (P • ~B)\n\nThe logical structure is that if U is true, then both P and ~B must be true. This corresponds to a conditional statement where U implies (P • ~B).\n\nAnswer: J","question":" Which of the given formulas of PL is the best symbolization of the following sentence?\nSince the university raised tuition, the president approved of it and the board didn't prevent it.","choices":["U • (P ⊃ ~B)","U ⊃ (P ∨ ~B)","(U ∨ P) • B","U ⊃ (~P • ~B)","(U ⊃ P) • B","U ⊃ (P • B)","(~U ⊃ P) • B","B ⊃ (U • P)","(P • ~B) ⊃ U","U ⊃ (P • ~B)"],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":10819,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on predicate logic for help. The statement \"All children go to some school\" means that for every child, there exists a school that the child goes to. This can be translated into predicate logic as follows:\n\n- ∀x (if x is a child, then there exists a y such that y is a school and x goes to y).\n\nThis corresponds to option J: (∀x)[Cx ⊃ (∃y)(Sy • Gxy)].\n\nAnswer: J","question":" Select the best translation into predicate logic. All children go to some school. (Cx: x is a child; Sx: x is a school; Gxy: x goes to y)","choices":["(∀x)(∃y)[(Cx • Sy) • Gxy)","(∀x)[Cx • (∃y)(Sy ⊃ Gxy)]","(∀x)[Sx ⊃ (∃y)(Cy • Gxy)]","(∀x)(∃y)[(Sx • Cy) • Gxy]","(∀x)(∃y)[(Cx ⊃ Sy) • Gxy]","(∀x)(∃y)[(Cx • Sy) ⊃ Gxy]","(∀x)[Sx ⊃ (∃y)(Cy ⊃ Gxy)]","(∀x)[Sx • (∃y)(Cy • Gxy)]","(∃x)(∀y)[(Cx • Sy) • Gxy]","(∀x)[Cx ⊃ (∃y)(Sy • Gxy)]"],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":10820,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on just war theory for help. The principle of military necessity is concerned with the conduct of war and ensuring that actions taken during warfare are necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective. This principle falls under jus in bello, which deals with the right conduct within war.\nAnswer: G","question":" Just war theory's principle of military necessity belongs to","choices":["just war theory's principle of proportionality.","none of the above.","all of the above","moral relativism.","moral nihilism.","just war theory's principle of right intention.","jus in bello.","jus post bellum.","jus ad bellum.","moral absolutism."],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10821,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Peter Carruthers is known for his work in philosophy of mind and ethics, particularly his approach to the moral standing of nonhuman animals. He approaches these questions from the perspective of contractualism, which is a moral theory that bases the rightness or wrongness of actions on the idea of a social contract or agreement among rational agents.\n\nAnswer: H","question":" Carruthers approaches questions about the moral standing of nonhuman animals from the perspective of which of the following moral theories?","choices":["relativism","consequentialism","natural law theory","egoism","Kantianism","utilitarianism","deontology","contractualism","existentialism","virtue ethics"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":10822,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to authoritative sources on environmental ethics for help. According to Hourdequin, individualism leads us into two main problems: it tends to make us think of our moral obligations as only personal obligations, and it makes us believe that we can only advocate for policy in \"tragedy of the commons\" situations.\n\nAnswer: I","question":" What two problems does individualism lead us into, according to Hourdequin?","choices":["They lead us into \"tragedy of the commons\" situations and they instill in us an atomistic view of persons.","It leads to a decline in societal values and the rise of selfish behavior.","It encourages a culture of isolation and self-centeredness, and leads to a lack of community engagement.","It leads to the breakdown of social structures and the erosion of collective responsibility.","It leads to increased greenhouse gas emissions and increased consumption of non-recyclable goods.","It leads to a lack of empathy and understanding of others, and an increase in individualistic behavior.","It results in increased consumption and waste, and a disregard for the environment.","It leads to failures of developing integration and integrality.","We both tend to think of our moral obligations as only personal obligations, and so think that we can only advocate for policy in \"tragedy of the commons\" situations.","It promotes competition over cooperation and leads to societal fragmentation."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":10823,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on environmental policy and collective action for help. \"Mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon\" refers to a situation where all parties involved agree to a system of enforceable rules or sanctions to achieve a common goal. This concept is often discussed in the context of managing common resources or addressing global issues like climate change. \n\nOption A describes a scenario where all countries cooperate to introduce enforceable sanctions to curb climate change, which fits the definition of \"mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon.\"\n\nOption B implies an imbalance of power and does not necessarily involve mutual agreement.\n\nOption C involves coercion by less powerful nations without mutual agreement.\n\nOption D involves individual agents but does not specify enforceable sanctions or mutual agreement at a larger scale.\n\nAnswer: A","question":" What is an example of \"mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon\"?","choices":["all countries cooperating to change the existing incentive structure by introducing a system of enforceable sanctions to curb climate change.","the agreement of more powerful nations to require less powerful nations to curb greenhouse gas emissions for the benefit of all humanity.","the agreement of less powerful nations to boycott trade with more powerful nations until the latter agree to curb their greenhouse gas emissions.","the agreement of a large number of individual agents to restrict their own pollution."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10825,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics and philosophy for help. Alan Dershowitz has argued that in certain extreme cases, such as the \"ticking time bomb\" scenario, act utilitarianism can justify actions like torture (and by extension, potentially terrorism) if it leads to the greater good by preventing a larger harm.\nAnswer: F","question":" What kind of consequentialist theory does Dershowitz think can justify terrorism in certain extreme particular cases?","choices":["deontological ethics","rule-based hedonism","act-based deontology","egoistic hedonism","moral relativism","act utilitarianism","rule utilitarianism","rule egoism","virtue ethics","act-based hedonism"],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":10826,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on prenatal development for help. The stage in prenatal development that begins at roughly the second week of pregnancy and lasts until roughly the eighth week is known as the embryonic stage.\nAnswer: A","question":" Which of the following is the term used to refer to a stage in prenatal development which in humans begins at roughly the second week of pregnancy and lasts until roughly the eighth week?","choices":["embryonic stage","fetal stage","pre-embryonic stage","zygotic stage","viability","postnatal stage","neonatal stage","implantation stage","gestational stage","fertilization"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10827,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics and Peter Singer's works for help. According to Singer, international corporations that deal with corrupt dictators are akin to people who knowingly buy stolen goods because they are benefiting from and perpetuating the corruption, similar to how someone who buys stolen goods is complicit in the theft by creating a market for stolen items.\nAnswer: B","question":" According to Singer, international corporations that deal with corrupt dictators are akin to","choices":["accomplices in the dictator's crimes.","people who knowingly buy stolen goods.","thieves who steal from the poor.","merchants who sell harmful products.","war profiteers exploiting conflict.","prostitutes who knowingly spread disease.","bystanders who ignore injustice.","politicians who accept bribes.","all of the above","murderers of those who witness crimes."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10828,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics and philosophy for help. The phrase \"nearly as important\" in the premise is deliberately left vague because it requires subjective judgment to determine what qualifies as \"nearly as important\" as preventing something bad from happening.\nAnswer: G","question":" The second premise in Singer's main argument is: \"If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.\" Which phrase in this premise is deliberately left vague?","choices":["\"it is in\"","\"in your power\"","\"prevent\"","\"If it is\"","\"it is wrong\"","\"not to do so\"","\"nearly as important\"","\"from happening\"","\"something bad\"","\"without sacrificing\""],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10829,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on bioethics and the works of David Velleman for help. According to Velleman, valuing a patient's autonomy by maximizing their effective options is about enhancing their opportunities for self-determination.\nAnswer: H","question":" One way to value a patient's autonomy is by aiming to maximize his or her effective options. When we value a patient's autonomy in this way, what, according to Velleman, do we value?","choices":["the patient's ability to make informed decisions","the ability to share reasons with the patient","the ability to understand the patient's needs","the patient's right to refuse treatment","the ability to provide the patient with options","the patient's personal preferences","the patient's capacity for self-determination","the patient's opportunities for self-determination","the patient's understanding of their medical condition","the ability to communicate effectively with the patient"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":10830,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on developmental biology for help. An unborn vertebrate that has developed to the point of having the basic structure characteristic of its kind is known as a fetus. This stage follows the embryonic stage, where the basic structures and organs begin to form.\n\nAnswer: G","question":" An unborn vertebrate animal that has developed to the point of having the basic structure that is characteristic of its kind is known as","choices":["a pupa.","an embryo.","a gamete.","a larva.","a neonate.","a juvenile.","a fetus.","a zygote.","a blastocyst.","a hatchling."],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10831,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on environmental ethics for help. Aldo Leopold is known for his land ethic, which emphasizes the ethical and ecological importance of the natural environment beyond mere economic considerations. He would clearly accept that the problems associated with how we should use our natural environment are not merely economic problems.\nAnswer: C","question":" Which of the following claims would Leopold clearly accept?","choices":["The problems associated with how we should use our natural environment ultimately concern how human beings should treat each other.","We should think in terms of \"the balance of nature\" to properly appreciate the value of the natural environment.","The problems associated with how we should use our natural environment are not merely economic problems.","We should ignore all economic motives in deciding questions about land use."],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10832,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Manichaeism for help. Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, referred to God as the \"Father of Greatness\" or \"Father of Goodness\".\nAnswer: I","question":" Mani referred to God by which of the following names?","choices":["Eternal Spirit","Divine Guardian","Light Bringer","Heavenly Guide","Mother of Light","Infinite Wisdom","Ineffable Lover","Grand Architect","Father of Goodness","Supreme Creator"],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":10833,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the provided context for help. The Egyptian composition \"Ludlul-Bel-Nemeqi\" (which is actually Mesopotamian, not Egyptian) portrays Marduk as ultimately benevolent. Despite the speaker's suffering and initial silence from Marduk, the god eventually sends a healer to relieve the speaker's suffering, indicating that Marduk is both powerful and merciful.\n\nAnswer: H","question":" How does the Egyptian composition Ludul Bel Nemequi (\"I will praise the Lord of wisdom) portray Marduk?","choices":["Indifferent and detached","Judging and vengeful","Peaceful and generous","Loving and forgiving","Humble and subservient","Proud and self-absorbed","Transcendent and immanent","Wrathful and merciful"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":10834,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logic for help. A disjunctive syllogism is a valid argument form that involves a disjunction (an \"or\" statement) as the major premise and the negation of one of the disjuncts as the minor premise, leading to the conclusion that the other disjunct must be true. The major premise includes two or more alternatives.\n\nFor example:\n1. Major premise: A or B.\n2. Minor premise: Not A.\n3. Conclusion: Therefore, B.\n\nAnswer: F","question":"A valid disjunctive syllogism has a major premise that:","choices":["affirms the antecedent or denies the consequent","leads to an invalid conclusion","generalizes a specific case","includes three or more alternatives","contradicts the conclusion","includes two or more alternatives","leads to a valid conclusion","is based on a false premise","denies the antecedent or affirms the consequent","classifies subjects"],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":10835,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The false analogy fallacy occurs when a conclusion is drawn based on a comparison between two things that are not sufficiently similar to warrant the conclusion. This means that the items being compared do not have enough relevant similarities to support the argument being made.\n\nAnswer: F","question":"The false analogy fallacy is","choices":["a specific type of false cause fallacy that argues that since two event happened at the same time one event must have caused the other","arguing that a statement is true because it has not been proven false","a specific type of false cause fallacy that argues that since two events happened in sequence, the first event must have caused the second.","arguing that a statement is false because it has not been proven true","arguing that since a statement is popular, it must be true","drawing a conclusion based on a comparison when the items being compared are not similar enough to support the conclusion.","arguing that since something is new it is necessarily good","drawing a conclusion based on a comparison when the items being compared are too similar to distinguish","a fallacy of relevance where the premise of an argument is irrelevant to the conclusion","arguing that an event that preceded another event necessarily is the cause of the second event"],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":10836,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The _ad nauseam_ fallacy involves reasoning that a conclusion is true because it has been repeated so often.\nAnswer: F","question":"The _ad nauseam_ fallacy is","choices":["reasoning that a conclusion is false because it's been claimed so rarely","reasoning that a claim is true because it hasn't been disproven","arguing that an act should be carried out because it will not have any significant consequences, when there is no evidence of the effects","arguing that a conclusion is true because it's been disproven so often","arguing that something should be done because that's the way it's been done in the past.","reasoning that a conclusion is true because it's been claimed so often","reasoning that a claim is false because so many people believe it is false","arguing that an act should be avoided because it will have significant consequences, when there is no evidence of the effects","reasoning that a claim is true because so many people believe it is true","arguing that something should not be done because it's never been done in the past"],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":10837,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The Dean's response \"about one in a hundred\" is ambiguous and can be interpreted in multiple ways, such as meaning there are very few students or that the ratio of students to some other group is 1:100. This ambiguity is a classic example of the fallacy of equivocation, where a word or phrase is used with different meanings in an argument.\n\nAnswer: F","question":"The Dean was showing a visitor around the campus. The visitor asked, \"About how many students do you have here?\" After a moment of reflection the Dean replied, \"Oh, I'd guess about one in a hundred.\"","choices":["Appeal to Authority","Red Herring","Denying the Antecedent","False Dilemma","Slippery Slope","Equivocation","Straw Man","Fallacy of Division","Circular Reasoning","Ad Hominem"],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":10838,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy described involves concluding that someone couldn't have done something good because of their negative qualities, which is an ad hominem attack. However, none of the options directly mention \"ad hominem.\" The closest option is \"Reprehensible personality,\" which suggests judging someone's actions based on their character.\n\nAnswer: C","question":"Which of the following fallacies happens when someone concludes that someone couldn't have done something good because he or she has negative qualities?","choices":["Laudatory personality","Red herring","Reprehensible personality","Circular reasoning","Straw man fallacy","Appeal to authority","False cause","Slippery slope","Guilt by association"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10839,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. A faulty analogy occurs when the things being compared are not sufficiently similar in relevant ways to support the conclusion drawn from the comparison.\nAnswer: E","question":"In a faulty analogy, the things being compared are...","choices":["Completely unrelated in any way","Similar in some ways, different in others","Similar in appearance, but not in function","Sufficiently similar","Not sufficiently similar in relevant ways","Different in appearance, but similar in function","Completely identical in all ways","Completely dissimilar in all ways","Complete opposites"],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":10840,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy described involves appealing to someone's sense of pride or self-esteem to persuade them to accept a claim. This is known as an \"appeal to pride\" fallacy.\nAnswer: H","question":"Which of the following fallacies happen if someone argues that you are a reasonable and intelligent person, so of course you understand his claim is true?","choices":["argument from authority","ad hominem attack","begging the question","red herring","significance","false cause","straw man","appeal to pride","slippery slope","bandwagon fallacy"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":10841,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The term \"ad novitatem\" refers to the appeal to novelty, which is the fallacy of assuming that something is better or correct simply because it is new. This does not directly align with any of the options provided, but it is closest to a false cause fallacy, where an incorrect cause-and-effect relationship is assumed.\n\nAnswer: C","question":"\" _Ad novitatem_ \" is a specific kind of fallacy of","choices":["Division","False sign","False cause","Hasty Generalization"],"correct":"B","answer":"C","score":0}
{"number":10842,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of beauty and artistic taste. It concerns itself with what is considered beautiful or pleasing to the senses, which are not essential to our existence but rather enhance our experience of life.\nAnswer: A","question":"Aesthetics deals with objects that are_____.","choices":["not essential to our existence","frequently used in daily life","not visible to the human eye","only appreciated by experts","universally liked","unimportant to most people","essential for survival","essential to our existence","rarely viewed","universally disliked"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10843,"response":"Explanation: Clarence Darrow, a prominent lawyer and civil libertarian, was known for his skeptical and often pessimistic views on life. He is famously quoted as saying that life is a series of random events with no ultimate purpose or meaning. This aligns with the idea that life is a cosmic joke without real meaning.\n\nAnswer: J","question":"What was Clarence Darrow's belief about life's meaning?","choices":["Life was meaningful for most people.","Life was a gift to be cherished and enjoyed.","Life was hard but worthwhile.","Life was an unpredictable journey with moments of meaning.","Life was a series of random events with no ultimate purpose.","Life was a constant struggle with no ultimate reward.","Life was uncertain but ultimately rewarding.","Life was inherently joyful and full of meaning.","Life was not worthwhile.","Life was a cosmic joke without real meaning."],"correct":"I","answer":"J","score":0}
{"number":10844,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Epicureanism for help. According to Epicurus, prudence (or practical wisdom) is the source of all other virtues because it helps us make decisions that lead to a pleasurable and tranquil life.\nAnswer: J","question":"Epicurus claims that all other virtues spring from:","choices":["temperance.","self-control.","humility.","faith.","integrity.","courage.","honesty.","wisdom.","justice.","prudence."],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":10845,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on moral philosophy for help. The moral argument against imprisoning debtors often relies on the principle of universalizability, which suggests that one should act only according to that maxim whereby they can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Imprisoning debtors would not be a practice that could be universally applied without leading to significant societal issues and injustices.\n\nAnswer: C","question":"In the case of the debtors, the moral argument against imprisoning A relies on:","choices":["fear.","the principle of retributive justice.","universalizability.","considerations of the debtor's mental health.","all of the above.","the potential for societal backlash."],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10846,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. R.M. Hare, a prominent moral philosopher, argued that both ethics and science involve testing general principles by examining their logical consequences. This approach is known as prescriptivism in ethics, which parallels the scientific method of hypothesis testing.\nAnswer: F","question":"Hare asserts that ethics and science are similar in that:","choices":["both are infallible and beyond questioning.","ethics guides science in its pursuit of knowledge.","both are essential components of a worthwhile life.","both are completely separate and do not intersect.","both seek to provide us with true beliefs about the world.","both involve testing general principles by examining their logical consequences.","all of the above.","both are based solely on personal opinions and beliefs."],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":10847,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. John Stuart Mill, a prominent utilitarian philosopher, addressed the criticism that utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy of swine by arguing that pleasures differ in quality. He distinguished between higher (intellectual and moral) and lower (bodily) pleasures, asserting that higher pleasures are more valuable than lower ones.\n\nAnswer: G","question":"When faced with the complaint that utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy of swine, Mill responds that pleasures differ in:","choices":["cost.","weight.","species.","purity.","morality.","frequency.","quality.","practicality.","intensity.","duration."],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10848,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Nussbaum, in her interpretation of Aristotle, argues that the reference of each virtue term is fixed by a \"thick description\" of the virtue, which includes detailed and context-specific information about what the virtue entails.\nAnswer: A","question":"Nussbaum claims that for Aristotle the reference of each virtue term is fixed by:","choices":["a thick description of the virtue.","religious beliefs.","personal interpretation.","philosophical analysis.","a thin description of the virtue.","practical experiences.","grounding experiences.","societal norms.","conventional use.","tradition."],"correct":"G","answer":"A","score":0}
{"number":10849,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Peter Singer, a contemporary philosopher known for his work in ethics, particularly animal rights and effective altruism, often draws parallels between his utilitarian conclusions and those of earlier utilitarian philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. However, among the given options, the philosopher most closely associated with utilitarianism is John Locke, who is known for his influence on liberal political philosophy but not specifically for utilitarianism. Given the choices, none of them are directly aligned with Singer's utilitarian views. However, if we consider the broader context of ethical reasoning and moral philosophy, Singer's approach might be seen as somewhat aligned with the empirical and human-centered ethics of David Hume.\n\nAnswer: I","question":"Singer claims that his conclusions are similar to those of:","choices":["Jean-Jacques Rousseau.","René Descartes.","Plato.","John Locke.","Aristotle.","Thomas Aquinas.","Socrates.","Immanuel Kant.","David Hume.","Friedrich Nietzsche."],"correct":"F","answer":"I","score":0}
{"number":10850,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. Peter Singer's theory, particularly his argument in \"Famine, Affluence, and Morality,\" suggests that individuals have a moral obligation to prevent suffering and death if they can do so without sacrificing something of comparable moral importance. One common objection he considers is that his theory requires too drastic a revision to our moral scheme, as it demands significant changes in how we view our moral obligations and the extent of our responsibilities to others.\n\nAnswer: J","question":"One objection to Singer’s theory that he considers is that it:","choices":["inappropriately makes proximity morally important.","fails to consider the cultural differences in moral norms.","overlooks the role of government and institutions in addressing suffering.","does not do enough to address suffering in other countries besides our own.","does not account for the fact that we have stricter obligations to our loved ones than to strangers.","does not address the issue of moral obligations to non-human animals.","ignores the importance of self-interest in human behavior.","assumes that all individuals have the same capacity to alleviate suffering.","does not provide a clear definition of what constitutes suffering.","requires too drastic a revision to our moral scheme."],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":10851,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Socratic philosophy for help. According to Socrates, understanding what makes an action the kind of action it is (e.g., merciful or just) is crucial because without such knowledge, we can only refer to how people characterize actions without knowing why such actions should be characterized that way. This aligns with Socratic emphasis on the importance of definitions and understanding the essence of concepts.\n\nAnswer: F","question":"According to Socrates, it is important that we discover what makes a particular action (e.g., a merciful or just act) the kind of action that it is, because without such knowledge:","choices":["we would not be able to categorize actions as good or bad.","we would not be able to understand the true motivations behind our actions.","there would be no universal standard for morality.","the primary purpose of human existence--which is to think and to know--is replaced by a focus on morality (acting and doing).","we would not be able to improve or evolve our actions and behavior.","we can refer only to how people characterize actions without knowing why such actions should be characterized that way.","there would be no way to distinguish one kind of action (e.g., a merciful action) from another kind of action (e.g., a just action).","people would only act based on their personal beliefs and not on universal truths.","no one in society will ever do any action that really is merciful or just, only those actions that they think are merciful or just.","we would live in a society where actions are arbitrary and not based on any concrete principle."],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":10852,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on political philosophy for help. John Rawls' theory of justice consists of two principles that are interdependent and must be accepted together to maintain the coherence of his overall framework.\nAnswer: I","question":"According to Rawls, the two parts of his theory:","choices":["can be proven false with logical reasoning.","are independent: You can accept either part without accepting the other.","are based purely on empirical evidence.","are not open to debate or disagreement.","cannot be justified via rational means.","can only be justified through emotional appeal.","are based on personal preferences and biases.","are dependent on each other, but can be accepted separately.","are interdependent: You cannot accept one part without accepting the other.","are provable from self-evident premises."],"correct":"B","answer":"I","score":0}
{"number":10853,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Thomas Aquinas for help. According to Aquinas, pleasure is a byproduct of an activity (operation) and exists for the sake of the operation, not the other way around. This means that pleasure serves the purpose of enhancing or completing the activity.\n\nAnswer: A","question":"Aquinas claims that:","choices":["pleasure exists for the sake of operation.","operation exists for the sake of pleasure.","both b and c.","both a and c.","neither operation nor pleasure exist for their own sake.","both a and b.","pleasure and operation exist for their own sake.","operation exists for its own sake.","operation and pleasure exist independently of each other.","pleasure exists for its own sake."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10854,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. The four main divisions of philosophy are metaphysics, epistemology, axiology, and logic. Axiology itself is divided into ethics and aesthetics.\nAnswer: B","question":"The four main divisions of philosophy are metaphysics, epistemology, axiology, and _____.","choices":["phenomenology","logic","cosmology","bioethics","ethics","categorical logic","stoicism","existentialism","ontology","aesthetics"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10855,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to William Lane Craig, an actually infinite number of things cannot exist in reality. This is a key point in his argument against the possibility of an infinite past.\nAnswer: A","question":"Craig says an actually infinite number of things _____.","choices":["cannot exist","can be physically observed","can be counted one by one","is a concept beyond human comprehension","only exists in mathematics","can only exist in theory","is meaningless","exists somewhere","is possible","is a paradox"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10856,"response":"Explanation: Let's construct the truth table step by step for the given argument \\( P \\supset Q \\), \\( Q \\cdot R \\) / \\( \\sim P \\cdot R \\).\n\nFirst, we list all possible truth values for \\( P \\), \\( Q \\), and \\( R \\):\n\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{c|c|c|c|c|c}\nP & Q & R & P \\supset Q & Q \\cdot R & \\sim P \\cdot R \\\\ \n\\hline\nT & T & T & T & T & F \\\\ \nT & T & F & T & F & F \\\\ \nT & F & T & F & F & F \\\\ \nT & F & F & F & F & F \\\\ \nF & T & T & T & T & T \\\\ \nF & T & F & T & F & F \\\\ \nF & F & T & T & F & T \\\\ \nF & F & F & T & F & F \\\\ \n\\end{array}\n\\]\n\nNow, let's analyze the rows where both premises are true:\n\n1. Row 5: \\( P = F, Q = T, R = T \\)\n   - \\( P \\supset Q = T \\)\n   - \\( Q \\cdot R = T \\)\n   - Conclusion: \\( \\sim P \\cdot R = T \\)\n\n2. Row 7: \\( P = F, Q = F, R = T \\)\n   - \\( P \\supset Q = T \\)\n   - \\( Q \\cdot R = F \\)\n   - Conclusion: \\( \\sim P \\cdot R = T \\)\n\nIn these rows, the conclusion is true whenever the premises are true. However, let's find a counterexample where the premises are true but the conclusion is false:\n\n- Row 1: \\( P = T, Q = T, R = T\\)\n  - Premises:\n    - \\( P ⊃ Q = T\\)\n    - \\( Q · R = T\\)\n  - Conclusion:\n    - \\( ~P · R = (F · T) = F\\)\n\nHere, both premises are true but the conclusion is false.\n\nThus, the argument is invalid. The counterexample is when \\(P\\) is true, \\(Q\\) is true, and \\(R\\) is true.\n\nAnswer: H","question":" Construct a complete truth table for the following argument. Then, using the truth table, determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\nP ⊃ Q\nQ · R / ~P · R","choices":["Valid","Invalid. Counterexample when P is false, R is true and Q is false","Invalid. Counterexample when P and R are true and Q is false","Invalid. Counterexample when P is false, Q is true and R is false","Invalid. Counterexample when P, Q, and R are all false","Invalid. Counterexample when R and Q are true and P is false","Invalid. Counterexample when P and Q are true and R is false","Invalid. Counterexample when P, R, and Q are true","Invalid. Counterexample when P is true, R is false and Q is true","Valid. No possible counterexample"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":10857,"response":"Explanation: Let's construct the truth table for the propositions \\(\\neg O \\supset P\\) and \\(O \\lor P\\).\n\n1. List all possible truth values for \\(O\\) and \\(P\\):\n   - \\(O = T, P = T\\)\n   - \\(O = T, P = F\\)\n   - \\(O = F, P = T\\)\n   - \\(O = F, P = F\\)\n\n2. Calculate \\(\\neg O \\supset P\\):\n   - When \\(O = T, P = T\\): \\(\\neg O = F\\), so \\(F \\supset T = T\\)\n   - When \\(O = T, P = F\\): \\(\\neg O = F\\), so \\(F \\supset F = T\\)\n   - When \\(O = F, P = T\\): \\(\\neg O = T\\), so \\(T \\supset T = T\\)\n   - When \\(O = F, P = F\\): \\(\\neg O = T\\), so \\(T \\supset F = F\\)\n\n3. Calculate \\(O \\lor P\\):\n   - When \\(O = T, P = T\\): \\(T \\lor T = T\\)\n   - When \\(O = T, P = F\\): \\(T \\lor F = T\\)\n   - When \\(O = F, P = T\\): \\(F \\lor T = T\\)\n   - When \\(O = F, P = F\\): \\(F \\lor F = F\\)\n\nNow let's compare the results:\n\n| O | P | ¬O ⊃ P | O ∨ P |\n|---|---|--------|-------|\n| T | T |    T   |   T   |\n| T | F |    T   |   T   |\n| F | T |    T   |   T   |\n| F | F |    F   |   F   |\n\nWe see that the columns for ¬O ⊃ P and O ∨ P are identical. This means that the two propositions are logically equivalent.\n\nAnswer: H","question":" Construct a complete truth table for the following pairs of propositions. Then, using the truth tables, determine whether the statements are logically equivalent or contradictory. If neither, determine whether they are consistent or inconsistent. Justify your answers.\n~O ⊃ P and O ∨ P","choices":["Both consistent and inconsistent","Neither logically equivalent nor contradictory, but inconsistent","Contradictory","Both contradictory and inconsistent","Neither logically equivalent nor contradictory, but consistent","Both logically equivalent and contradictory","Both logically equivalent and consistent","Logically equivalent","Inconsistent","Neither logically equivalent, contradictory, consistent, nor inconsistent"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":10858,"response":"Explanation: To determine the validity of the argument using an indirect truth table, we assume the premises are true and the conclusion is false, then check for any contradictions.\n\nGiven:\n1. (T · ~U) ⊃ ~W\n2. ~W ⊃ X\n3. ~Z ⊃ W\n4. ~(X · Z)\nConclusion: T ⊃ U\n\nAssume the conclusion is false: T ⊃ U is false when T is true and U is false.\n\nNow, let's check the premises under these conditions:\n\n1. (T · ~U) ⊃ ~W\n   - Since T is true and U is false, T · ~U is true.\n   - Therefore, ~W must be true (W must be false).\n\n2. ~W ⊃ X\n   - Since W is false, ~W is true.\n   - Therefore, X must be true.\n\n3. ~Z ⊃ W\n   - Since W is false, for this to be true, Z must be true (because if Z were false, then W would have to be true).\n\n4. ~(X · Z)\n   - Since X is true and Z is true, X · Z would be true.\n   - Therefore, ~(X · Z) would be false.\n\nWe have a contradiction here because ~(X · Z) cannot be both true and false simultaneously. Thus, the argument is valid as assuming the premises are true and the conclusion is false leads to a contradiction.\n\nAnswer: A","question":"Use indirect truth tables to determine whether the following argument is valid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\n(T · ~U) ⊃ ~W\n~W ⊃ X\n~Z ⊃ W\n~(X · Z) / T ⊃ U","choices":["Valid","Invalid. Counterexample when T and X are true and U, W, and Z are false","Invalid. Counterexample when W, X, and Z are true and T and U are false","Invalid. Counterexample when T, U, and X are true and W and Z are false","Invalid. Counterexample when T, U, and W are true and X and Z are false","Invalid. Counterexample when T, W, and Z are true and U and X are false","Invalid. Counterexample when T, U, and Z are true and W and X are false","Invalid. Counterexample when T, W, and X are true and U and Z are false","Invalid. Counterexample when U, W, and Z are true and T and X are false","Invalid. Counterexample when T, X, and Z are true and U and W are false"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10859,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. We need to find an immediate (one-step) consequence of the given premises:\n\n1. \\((N ⊃ ~O) ⊃ (O ∨ Q)\\)\n2. \\(P ⊃ (N ⊃ ~O)\\)\n3. \\(N ⊃ P\\)\n\nWe can use these premises to derive a conclusion in one logical step.\n\nFirst, let's consider the premises and see if any of them directly imply one of the choices:\n\n- Premise 1: \\((N ⊃ ~O) ⊃ (O ∨ Q)\\)\n- Premise 2: \\(P ⊃ (N ⊃ ~O)\\)\n- Premise 3: \\(N ⊃ P\\)\n\nFrom Premise 1, we know that if \\(N ⊃ ~O\\) is true, then \\(O ∨ Q\\) must be true.\n\nFrom Premise 2, we know that if \\(P\\) is true, then \\(N ⊃ ~O\\) must be true.\n\nFrom Premise 3, we know that if \\(N\\) is true, then \\(P\\) must be true.\n\nNow let's see which of the given propositions can be derived immediately from these premises:\n\n- Option B: \\(O ∨ Q\\). This can be derived from Premise 1 if we can show that \\(N ⊃ ~O\\) is true.\n- Option I: \\(\\sim O ∨ Q\\). This is logically equivalent to Option B because \\(\\sim O ∨ Q\\) is the same as saying \"if not O, then Q,\" which aligns with the form of Premise 1.\n\nGiven this analysis, we see that Option I (\\(\\sim O ∨ Q\\)) is an immediate consequence of Premise 1.\n\nAnswer: I","question":" Which of the following propositions is an immediate (one-step) consequence in PL of the given premises?\n(N ⊃ ~O) ⊃ (O ∨ Q)\nP ⊃ (N ⊃ ~O)\nN ⊃ P","choices":["P ⊃ O","O ∨ Q","N ⊃ Q","O ∨ P","~N","P","N ⊃ ~O","P ⊃ Q","~O ∨ Q","~P"],"correct":"F","answer":"I","score":0}
{"number":10860,"response":"Explanation: Let's break down the given arguments in predicate logic step by step.\n\n1. \\((∃x)(Cx • Ox)\\): This means \"There exists an x such that x is a cookie (Cx) and x has oatmeal (Ox).\" In simpler terms, \"Some cookies have oatmeal.\"\n\n2. \\((∀x)[(~Cx ⊃ ~Bx) ⊃ ~Og]\\): This means \"For all x, if not being a cookie (¬Cx) implies not having chocolate chips (¬Bx), then it implies that g does not have oatmeal (¬Og).\"\n\n3. \\(/ ~Og\\): This is the conclusion, which states \"g does not have oatmeal.\"\n\nNow let's match this with the English interpretations provided:\n\n- A: Some cookies have oatmeal. If something's not having chocolate chips entails that it is not a cookie, then it doesn't have oatmeal. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.\n- B: Some cookies have oatmeal. If something's not being a cookie entails that it doesn't have oatmeal, then this cookie doesn't have chocolate chips. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.\n- C: Some cookies have oatmeal. If something's not being a cookie entails that it doesn't have chocolate chips, then this cookie doesn't have oatmeal. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.\n- D: Some cookies have oatmeal. If something's not a cookie, it does not have oatmeal, and it does not have chocolate chips. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.\n- E: Some cookies have oatmeal. If something is a cookie, it does not have chocolate chips, and it doesn't have oatmeal. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.\n- F: Some cookies have oatmeal. If something's not being a cookie entails that it does have chocolate chips, then this cookie doesn't have oatmeal. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.\n- G: Some cookies have oatmeal. If something is not a cookie and does not have chocolate chips, it doesn't have oatmeal. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.\n- H: Some cookies have oatmeal. If something doesn't have oatmeal, then it is not a cookie and it doesn't have chocolate chips. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.\n- I: Some cookies have oatmeal. If something does not have chocolate chips, then it is not a cookie and therefore, it doesn't have oatmeal. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.\n- J: Some cookies have oatmeal. If something's not a cookie, it doesn't have chocolate chips. So this cookie has oatmeal.\n\nThe correct interpretation should reflect the logical structure of the arguments provided in the predicate logic statements.\n\nThe best match among the options is:\nC: Some cookies have oatmeal. If something's not being a cookie entails that it doesn't have chocolate chips, then this cookie doesn't have oatmeal. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.\n\nAnswer: C","question":" Select the best English interpretation of the given arguments in predicate logic.\n(∃x)(Cx • Ox)\n(∀x)[(~Cx ⊃ ~Bx) ⊃ ~Og]\t/ ~Og","choices":["Some cookies have oatmeal. If something's not having chocolate chips entails that it is not a cookie, then it doesn't have oatmeal. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.","Some cookies have oatmeal. If something's not being a cookie entails that it doesn't have oatmeal, then this cookie doesn't have chocolate chips. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.","Some cookies have oatmeal. If something's not being a cookie entails that it doesn't have chocolate chips, then this cookie doesn't have oatmeal. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.","Some cookies have oatmeal. If something's not a cookie, it does not have oatmeal, and it does not have chocolate chips. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.","Some cookies have oatmeal. If something is a cookie, it does not have chocolate chips, and it doesn't have oatmeal. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.","Some cookies have oatmeal. If something's not being a cookie entails that it does have chocolate chips, then this cookie doesn't have oatmeal. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.","Some cookies have oatmeal. If something is not a cookie and does not have chocolate chips, it doesn't have oatmeal. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.","Some cookies have oatmeal. If something doesn't have oatmeal, then it is not a cookie and it doesn't have chocolate chips. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.","Some cookies have oatmeal. If something does not have chocolate chips, then it is not a cookie and therefore, it doesn't have oatmeal. So this cookie doesn't have oatmeal.","Some cookies have oatmeal. If something's not a cookie, it doesn't have chocolate chips. So this cookie has oatmeal."],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10861,"response":"Explanation: Let's construct the truth table step by step and analyze the argument.\n\nThe argument is:\n1. Premise 1: ~A · ~B\n2. Premise 2: (A ∨ C) ∨ B\n3. Conclusion: C\n\nWe need to determine if the conclusion (C) is true in all cases where both premises are true.\n\nLet's create a truth table for all possible truth values of A, B, and C:\n\n| A | B | C | ~A | ~B | ~A · ~B | A ∨ C | (A ∨ C) ∨ B |\n|---|---|---|----|----|--------|-------|-------------|\n| T | T | T |  F |  F |    F   |   T   |      T      |\n| T | T | F |  F |  F |    F   |   T   |      T      |\n| T | F | T |  F |  T |    F   |   T   |      T      |\n| T | F | F |  F |  T |    F   |   T   |      T      |\n| F | T | T |  T |  F |    F   |   T   |      T      |\n| F | T | F |  T |  F |    F   |   F   |      T      |\n| F | F | T |  T |  T |    T   |   T   |      T      |\n| F | F | F |  T |  T |    T   |\n\nNow, let's check when both premises are true and see if the conclusion (C) is also true in those cases:\n\n- The row where both premises (~A · ~B and (A ∨ C) ∨ B) are true is:\n  \n  - Row: A = False, B = False, C = True\n    - ~A · ~B = True\n    - (A ∨ C) ∨ B = True\n    - Conclusion (C) = True\n\nSince there is no row where both premises are true and the conclusion is false, the argument is valid.\n\nAnswer: H","question":" Construct a complete truth table for the following argument. Then, using the truth table, determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\n~A · ~B\n(A ∨ C) ∨ B / C","choices":["Invalid. Counterexample when A, B, and C are all true","Invalid. Counterexample when A, B, and C are all false","Invalid. Counterexample when A and B are true and C is false","Invalid. Counterexample when B is true and A and C are false","Invalid. Counterexample when A and C are true and B is false","Invalid. Counterexample when A is true and B and C are false","Invalid. Counterexample when A is false and B and C are true","Valid","Invalid. Counterexample when C is true and A and B are false"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":10862,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The formula (A ∨ ~E) ≡ (D • ~B) means that \"Either Marina reads a Percy Jackson book or Ashleigh does not stop by\" is logically equivalent to \"both Russell makes dinner and Izzy doesn't play Minecraft.\" This equivalence indicates a biconditional relationship, meaning that one side is true if and only if the other side is true.\n\nNow, let's analyze the options:\n- Option B correctly captures this biconditional relationship by stating \"Either Marina reads a Percy Jackson book or Ashleigh does not stop by just in case both Russell makes dinner and Izzy doesn't play Minecraft.\"\n\nAnswer: B","question":" Use the following key to translate the given formula of PL to natural, English sentences.\nA: Marina reads a Percy Jackson book.\nB: Izzy plays Minecraft.\nC: Emily stops working.\nD: Russell makes dinner.\nE: Ashleigh stops by.\n(A ∨ ~E) ≡ (D • ~B)","choices":["Either Marina reading a Percy Jackson book or Ashleigh not stopping by is a necessary condition for both Russell not making dinner and Izzy not playing Minecraft.","Either Marina reads a Percy Jackson book or Ashleigh does not stop by just in case both Russell makes dinner and Izzy doesn't play Minecraft.","Marina reads a Percy Jackson book or Ashleigh doesn't stop by only if Russell doesn't make dinner and Izzy plays Minecraft.","Marina reads a Percy Jackson book unless Ashleigh stops by if, and only if, both Russell makes dinner and Izzy doesn't play Minecraft.","Marina reads a Percy Jackson book or Ashleigh does not stop by only when Russell is making dinner and Izzy is not playing Minecraft.","Either Marina reads a Percy Jackson book or Ashleigh doesn't stop by whenever Russell makes dinner and Izzy doesn't play Minecraft.","Marina reading a Percy Jackson book or Ashleigh not stopping by is a necessary condition for Russell not making dinner and Izzy playing Minecraft.","Either Marina reading a Percy Jackson book or Ashleigh not stopping by is a necessary and sufficient condition for Russell making dinner and Izzy playing Minecraft.","Either Marina reading a Percy Jackson book or Ashleigh not stopping by is a necessary condition for both Russell making dinner and Izzy not playing Minecraft.","Either Marina reading a Percy Jackson book or Ashleigh not stopping by is a necessary and sufficient condition for Russell not making dinner and Izzy playing Minecraft."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10863,"response":"Explanation: Let's break down the given arguments in predicate logic step by step.\n\n1. \\( Wn \\lor Wm \\): Either Nancy or Marvin are at work.\n2. \\( (\\forall x)[Lx \\supset (Dx \\supset \\neg Wx)] \\): For all x, if x is a lawyer, then if x is out to dinner, x is not at work.\n3. \\( Ln \\cdot Dn \\): Nancy is a lawyer and Nancy is out to dinner.\n4. \\( / \\neg (\\forall x) \\neg Wx \\): Therefore, it is not the case that everything is not at work.\n\nNow let's interpret these statements in English:\n\n- The first statement \\( Wn \\lor Wm \\) means \"Either Nancy or Marvin are at work.\"\n- The second statement \\( (\\forall x)[Lx \\supset (Dx \\supset \\neg Wx)] \\) means \"All lawyers are not at work if they are out to dinner.\"\n- The third statement \\( Ln \\cdot Dn \\) means \"Nancy is a lawyer and out to dinner.\"\n- The conclusion \\( / \\neg (\\forall x) \\neg Wx \\) means \"So not everything is not at work.\"\n\nCombining these interpretations, we get:\n\n\"Either Nancy or Marvin are at work. All lawyers are not at work if they are out to dinner. Nancy is a lawyer and out to dinner. So not everything is not at work.\"\n\nThis matches option G.\n\nAnswer: G","question":" Select the best English interpretation of the given arguments in predicate logic.\nWn ∨ Wm\n(∀x)[Lx ⊃ (Dx ⊃ ~Wx)]\nLn • Dn\t/ ~(∀x)~Wx","choices":["Either Nancy or Marvin are at work. All lawyers are not at work if they are out to dinner. Nancy is a lawyer and not out to dinner. So not everything is not at work.","Either Nancy or Marvin are at work. All lawyers are at work if they are out to dinner. Nancy is a lawyer and out to dinner. So not everything is at work.","Either Nancy or Marvin are at work. All lawyers are not at work if they are out to dinner. Nancy is not a lawyer and out to dinner. So not everything is not at work.","Either Nancy or Marvin are at work. All lawyers are not at work if they are out to dinner. Nancy is a lawyer and out to dinner. So not everything is at work.","Either Nancy or Marvin are at work. All lawyers are out to dinner if they are not at work. Nancy is a lawyer and out to dinner. So not everything is at work.","Either Nancy or Marvin are not at work. All lawyers are out to dinner if they are at work. Nancy is a lawyer and out to dinner. So not everything is at work.","Either Nancy or Marvin are at work. All lawyers are not at work if they are out to dinner. Nancy is a lawyer and out to dinner. So not everything is not at work.","Either Nancy or Marvin are not at work. All lawyers are not at work if they are out to dinner. Nancy is a lawyer and out to dinner. So not everything is at work.","Either Nancy or Marvin are at work. All lawyers are at work if they are not out to dinner. Nancy is a lawyer and out to dinner. So not everything is not at work.","Either Nancy or Marvin are at work. All lawyers are out to dinner if they are not at work. Nancy is a lawyer and out to dinner. So not everything is not at work."],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10864,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. To determine the validity of the argument, we use an indirect truth table to check if there is any counterexample where the premises are true and the conclusion is false.\n\n1. \\((K \\cdot L) \\supset M\\)\n2. \\(N \\supset \\neg M\\)\n3. \\(N \\lor K\\)\n4. Conclusion: \\(L \\supset K\\)\n\nWe need to find a situation where all premises are true and the conclusion is false.\n\n- For \\(L \\supset K\\) to be false, \\(L\\) must be true and \\(K\\) must be false.\n- If \\(K\\) is false, then \\(N \\lor K\\) implies that \\(N\\) must be true (since \\(K\\) is false).\n- If \\(N\\) is true, then from \\(N \\supset \\neg M\\), \\(\\neg M\\) must be true, so \\(M\\) must be false.\n- If \\(M\\) is false and \\((K \\cdot L) \\supset M\\) is true, then either \\(K \\cdot L\\) must be false or both must be false.\n\nLet's evaluate the options:\n- Option B: L, M, and N are true, and K is false.\n  - If L is true and K is false, then L ⊃ K is false.\n  - If N is true, then N ⊃ ~M implies ~M must be true, so M must be false.\n  - This contradicts the condition that M is true in this option.\n\n- Option C: L and M are true, and K and N are false.\n  - If L is true and K is false, then L ⊃ K is false.\n  - If N is false, N ⊃ ~M is vacuously true regardless of M's value.\n  - If K · L implies (false · true), which makes (K · L) ⊃ M vacuously true regardless of M's value.\n\n- Option D: L and N are true, and K and M are false.\n  - If L is true and K is false, then L ⊃ K is false.\n  - If N is true, then N ⊃ ~M implies ~M must be true, so M must be false.\n  - This satisfies all conditions without contradiction.\n\nTherefore:\nAnswer: D","question":"Use indirect truth tables to determine whether the following argument is valid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\n(K · L) ⊃ M\nN ⊃ ~M\nN ∨ K / L ⊃ K","choices":["Valid","Invalid. Counterexample when L, M, and N are true and K is false","Invalid. Counterexample when L and M are true and K and N are false","Invalid. Counterexample when L and N are true and K and M are false"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10865,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to academic literature on ethics for help. Hourdequin's critique of consequentialist calculation emphasizes the difficulty of integrating commitments at various levels, such as personal, social, and global commitments. This critique suggests that focusing solely on outcomes can undermine a person's ability to maintain coherence in their values and commitments across different contexts.\n\nAnswer: D","question":" Hourdequin argues that one flaw of consequentialist calculation is that","choices":["it negates the notion that individuals are inherently self-interested actors.","it can run counter to the idea that persons are atomistic and individually rational actors.","it overlooks the potential conflict between individual and collective interests.","it can run counter to a person's being able to integrate her commitments at various levels.","it fails to reconcile prima facie duties.","it doesn't consider the potential of individuals to act against their own self-interest.","it undermines the importance of personal values and beliefs in decision-making.","it disregards the impact of social norms on individual decision-making.","it fails to recognize that possibility that the persons are best understood in relation to one another.","it discredits the notion that individuals can make morally autonomous decisions."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10866,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on environmental ethics for help. Biocentrism is the ethical perspective that all living beings, because they are living, possess direct moral standing.\nAnswer: I","question":" Biocentrism is the view that","choices":["the primary bearers of direct moral standing are ecosystems in virtue of their functional integrity.","the only beings that possess direct moral standing are human beings.","the primary bearers of direct moral standing are individual species.","only beings that can feel pain have direct moral standing.","all beings, because they exist, possess direct moral standing.","only beings that possess consciousness have direct moral standing.","only human beings and animals have direct moral standing.","all and only sentient creatures have direct moral standing.","all living beings, because they are living, possess direct moral standing.","all beings, living or non-living, possess direct moral standing."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":10867,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to authoritative sources on political philosophy for help. Michael Macedo discusses various duties that societies have toward nonmembers, including duties of fair dealing, rectification and redress, and humanitarian duties. However, cosmopolitan egalitarian duties, such as ensuring that everyone has equal wealth, are not typically emphasized by Macedo.\nAnswer: B","question":" Which of the following is not mentioned by Macedo as a duty that societies have toward nonmembers?","choices":["duties of fair dealing (e.g., nonexploitation)","cosmopolitan egalitarian duties (e.g., ensuring that everyone has equal wealth)","duties of rectification and redress (e.g., redressing those who were oppressed)","humanitarian duties (e.g., preventing systematic violations of human rights)"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10868,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the abstract of Frances M. Kamm's article on Michael Sandel's arguments regarding enhancement. Kamm examines Sandel's distinction between treatment and enhancement, particularly how Sandel views the relationship each has with nature. Sandel argues that enhancement is motivated by a desire for mastery and could be impermissible because it disrupts the natural order, implying that treatment is more morally acceptable than enhancement.\n\nAnswer: D","question":" Kamm claims that Sandel's moral distinction between treatment and enhancement assumes that","choices":["enhancement is always morally superior to treatment.","enhancement is inherently unnatural.","human beings have a moral duty to enhance themselves.","medical treatment is always more morally acceptable than enhancement.","there is no moral difference between treatment and enhancement.","Sandel's view is based on a misunderstanding of nature.","there is a clear moral hierarchy between treatment and enhancement.","nature in itself has no moral value.","nature is sacred and should be honored.","human beings want enhancement more than they want treatment."],"correct":"I","answer":"D","score":0}
{"number":10869,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Kant's philosophy for help. According to Kant's Humanity formulation of the categorical imperative, we must treat humanity, whether in ourselves or others, always as an end and never merely as a means. This implies two general goals: promoting the morally permissible ends of others and self-perfection.\nAnswer: B","question":" In satisfying Kant's Humanity formulation of the categorical imperative, we are obligated to adopt two very general goals: the goal of promoting the (morally permissible) ends of others and the goal of","choices":["increasing social status.","self-perfection.","achieving inner peace.","achieving personal goals.","promoting social harmony.","self-sacrifice.","maximizing personal benefits.","producing happiness.","attaining moral superiority."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10870,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics for help. Norcross's argument aligns with the distinction between moral agents and moral patients. A being incapable of moral reasoning cannot be a moral agent, as moral agents are those who can engage in moral reasoning and be held morally accountable for their actions.\n\nAnswer: E","question":" Norcross agrees that if a being is incapable of moral reasoning, at even the most basic level, then it cannot be","choices":["an object of moral sympathy.","a morally autonomous being.","a moral patient.","a being of moral integrity.","a moral agent.","a subject of moral discourse.","an ethically responsible entity.","a being of value.","a moral observer.","a morally accountable being."],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":10871,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Thaddeus Metz is known for his work in African philosophy, particularly his views on dignity. Metz argues that dignity is fundamentally based on the capacity for communal or friendly relationships, which aligns with the African ethical concept of \"ubuntu.\"\n\nAnswer: C","question":" Metz argues that dignity is based in","choices":["a capacity for emotional intelligence","a capacity for scientific understanding","a capacity for communal or friendly relationships","a capacity for certain kinds of feelings or sentiments","a capacity for independent thinking","a capacity for moral thought","a capacity for rational deliberation","a capacity for physical strength","a capacity for artistic expression","a capacity for spiritual enlightenment"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10872,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Peter Singer uses both logical reasoning and the emotional appeal of the drowning child analogy to strengthen his argument. He wants to appeal to the reader's reason and not just pull at the reader's heartstrings, ensuring that the moral obligation is understood both rationally and emotionally.\n\nAnswer: D","question":" Singer presents his three-premise argument in addition to appealing to the case of the drowning child because","choices":["he argues that moral claims can only be justified through logical reasoning and real-life examples.","he believes that abstract arguments are more likely to convince one to act.","he believes that using both abstract arguments and emotional appeals provides a balanced perspective.","he wants to appeal to the reader's reason and not just pull at the reader's heartstrings.","he wants to show that moral obligations can arise from both rational argument and emotional response.","he believes arguments are a more efficient way to appeal to one's emotions.","he believes the case of the drowning child will make his argument more relatable.","he argues that our emotional reactions have no bearing on which moral claims are true.","he aims to appeal to both the logical and emotional aspects of the reader's mind.","he thinks that a combination of argument and emotion is more effective than either alone."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10873,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Kantian ethics for help. Kant's Universal Law formulation is a way to determine whether an action can be consistently willed as a universal law. It is essentially a consistency test to see if the maxim of one's action can be universally applied without contradiction.\n\nAnswer: A","question":" Kant's Universal Law formulation does not refer to an agent's wants; rather, it represents","choices":["a kind of consistency test.","an instruction for determining the legality of an action.","a way to measure the value of an action's consequences.","a criterion for social acceptability.","a protocol for interpersonal communication.","a method to determine personal desires.","a tool for assessing an individual's moral character.","a set of guidelines for achieving happiness.","an ethical dilemma.","a system for evaluating societal norms."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10874,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to philosophical discussions on ethics and bioethics for help. Susan Little's arguments often consider the broader context and conditions surrounding pregnancy and abortion. She suggests that terminating a pregnancy can be seen as a sign of respect when certain background conditions, such as a loving family environment, are not met.\n\nAnswer: A","question":" When we think about the norms of creation, Little argues that","choices":["it can be a sign of respect to terminate a pregnancy when certain background conditions, like a loving family, are not met.","it is never a sign of respect to terminate a pregnancy, because we should value and hold sacred the act of creation.","we see the abortion issue as a matter of the personal preferences of the mother.","none of the above."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10875,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Sikhism for help. Guru Nanak and his successors used specific Sikh Ragas in their hymns to evoke spiritual feelings and devotion among followers. These Ragas are intended to promote a sense of devotion and piety, aligning the mind with spiritual teachings.\n\nAnswer: H","question":" Guru Nanak and his successors instructed the use of particular Sikh Ragas in order to promote which of the following?","choices":["Discipline and order","Strength and perseverance","Wisdom and knowledge","Goodwill and love","Courage and bravery","Love and passion","Joy and happiness","Devotion and piety","Harmony and balance","Peace and tranquility"],"correct":"I","answer":"H","score":0}
{"number":10876,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Jewish history for help. After the Bar Kokhba revolt, the Jewish population in Judea was significantly reduced due to killings, expulsions, and enslavement. The two main centers for Jewish development shifted to Babylonia (modern-day Iraq) and Galilee in Palestine. However, considering the options provided, the closest match is Palestine and Babylonia.\n\nAnswer: H","question":" After the Bar Kochba revolt, where were the two main centres for Jewish development?","choices":["Babylonia and Europe","Rome and Europe","Palestine and France","Palestine and Rome","Europe and Egypt","Babylonia and Egypt","Spain and France","Palestine and Babylonia","Palestine and Spain","Spain and Babylonia"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":10877,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Christian denominations for help. The Quakers (also known as the Religious Society of Friends) are known for their emphasis on simplicity and a stripped-down form of worship, often without clergy or elaborate rituals.\nAnswer: E","question":" Which Christian denomination promotes a stripped-down Christianity?","choices":["Roman Catholic","Lutherans","Methodists","Greek Orthodox","Quakers","Seventh-day Adventists","Baptists","Mormons","Puritans","Anglicans"],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":10878,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Jewish denominations for help. Zacharias Frankel is known for founding the branch of Judaism called \"Positive-Historical Judaism,\" which later evolved into what is now known as Conservative Judaism.\nAnswer: C","question":"Which branch of Judaism founded by Zacharias Frankel is known for its \"Positive-Historical Judaism\"?","choices":["Orthodox","Sephardic","Conservative","Hasidic","Reconstructionism","Secular","Liberal","Haredi","Ultra-Orthodox","Reformed"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10879,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Yiddish and Jewish terminology for help. In Yiddish, the word for covenant is \"bris,\" which is a variant of the Hebrew word \"brit.\"\nAnswer: D","question":" In Yiddish, what is the word for covenant?","choices":["Haggadah","Halakhah","Brit","Bris"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10880,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy of style over substance involves reasoning that ideas presented in an appealing manner are correct, regardless of the content of the message. This matches option H.\nAnswer: H","question":"Which of the following best describes the fallacy of style over substance?","choices":["Rejecting a claim simply because it has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made.","Making a claim based on evidence that it just as likely to be false as true.","Making assumptions about a group based on the characteristics or behavior of a few individuals from that group.","Assuming that because two things occur together, they must be causally related.","Changing the meaning of a word or phrase from one part of the argument to another.","Confusing figurative language with literal language.","Assuming that what is true of the whole must also be true of the parts.","Reasoning that ideas presented in an appealing manner are correct, regardless of the content of the message.","Believing in something simply because it is stated by an authority figure.","Using emotionally charged language to create an impression about the subject of a claim, without making an argument that the language fits the subject."],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":10881,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logic for help. The rule \"The minor premise must affirm the antecedent or deny the consequent\" is related to conditional (if-then) statements, which are a key feature of hypothetical syllogisms.\nAnswer: I","question":"\"The minor premise must affirm the antecedent or deny the consequent\" is a way to determine the validity of which type of argument?","choices":["Red herring argument","Ad hominem argument","Deductive argument","Categorical syllogism","Disjunctive syllogism","Inductive argument","Analogical argument","Slippery slope argument","Hypothetical syllogism","Toulmin model"],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":10882,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. Evading the issue typically involves diverting attention away from the main argument or topic. The term \"irrelevant conclusion\" (also known as ignoratio elenchi) describes a situation where an argument is made that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question, thus evading the issue.\nAnswer: G","question":"Which of the following is another name for evading the issue?","choices":["hasty generalization","slippery slope","\"you too\" fallacy","false cause","argument against the person","appeal to fear","irrelevant conclusion","appeal to ignorance","begging the question"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10883,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the provided text from \"Logic: Deductive and Inductive\" by Carveth Read. The text discusses conditional syllogisms, specifically mentioning the requirement for the minor premise to either agree with the antecedent or disagree with the consequent. This aligns with the rules for hypothetical syllogisms, which are a type of conditional syllogism.\n\nAnswer: B","question":"\"To be valid, the minor premise must either agree with the antecedent, or disagree with the consequent\" is a requirement for","choices":["a categorical enthymeme","a conditional syllogism","a disjunctive inference","a distributive syllogism","a hypothetical syllogism","a conjunctive enthymeme","disjunctive enthymeme","a categorical syllogism","a disjunctive syllogism","a conjunctive syllogism"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10884,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logic for help. A disjunctive syllogism is a valid form of argument in which one premise is a disjunction (an \"or\" statement), and the other premise denies one of the disjuncts, leading to the conclusion that the remaining disjunct must be true. Therefore, the minor premise must either accept an alternative or reject an alternative.\nAnswer: A","question":"A valid disjunctive syllogism has which of the following characteristics?","choices":["The minor premise must either accept an alternative or reject an alternative","One of the premises is missing","The major premise must either affirm the antecedent or deny the consequent","It includes a conjunction in the major premise","It reaches a contradictory conclusion","It includes a hypothetical premise","The major premise must either accept an alternative or reject an alternative","The minor premise must either affirm the antecedent or deny the consequent","The minor premise must either accept a conjunction or reject a conjunction","It reaches a truthful conclusion"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10885,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. An appeal to compassion is a specific type of appeal to emotion where the argument is based on eliciting feelings of pity or sympathy to support a conclusion. This matches option A, which describes an appeal to emotion that argues a conclusion should be made based only on feeling sorry for someone.\nAnswer: A","question":"Appeal to compassion is","choices":["an appeal to emotion that argues a conclusion should be made based only on feeling sorry for someone","an appeal to emotion that argues a conclusion should be made based solely on feeling disgusted by someone","an appeal to emotion that argues a conclusion should be made based solely on fear","arguing that an idea should be rejected based only on who originated the idea","arguing that an idea should be accepted based only on who originated the idea","an appeal to emotion that argues a conclusion should be made based solely on feeling happy for someone","an appeal to emotion that argues an action should be taken based only on the need to be loyal to someone","an appeal to emotion that argues an action should be taken based solely on anger towards someone","arguing that an idea should be accepted based solely on the popularity of the idea","an appeal to emotion that argues against a position based only on negative personal feelings toward the position"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10886,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. William Safire's argument suggests that allowing secession would lead to endless subdivisions, making democracy absurd. This is a classic example of a slippery slope argument, where a relatively small first step is assumed to lead to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.\n\nAnswer: F","question":"William Safire in American Heritage Magazine (December 1987): ...The greatness of Lincoln was his purposefulness. He saw something that few others saw: that the democratic experiment centered on the Union and that majority rule was everything. The minute you allowed secession, you made democracy an absurdity---because what would happen would be continued subdivision.","choices":["Questionable Analogy","Red Herring","Appeal to Ignorance","Appeal to Authority","Ad Hominem","Slippery Slope","Circular Argument","False Dilemma","Straw Man","Hasty Generalization"],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":10887,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The question \"So, how long have you been beating your wife?\" is a classic example of a loaded question. It presupposes that the respondent has been beating their wife, which may not be true. This type of fallacy is designed to trap the respondent into admitting something they may not have done.\n\nHowever, none of the provided options directly describe a loaded question. The closest option that fits the nature of this fallacy is \"Prejudicial Language,\" as it involves using language that unfairly biases the response.\n\nAnswer: C","question":"So, how long have you been beating your wife?","choices":["Attacking the Person (ad hominem)","False Dilemma","Prejudicial Language","Appeal to Force"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10888,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy where someone changes the meaning of a word or phrase from one part of the argument to another is known as equivocation.\nAnswer: G","question":"When someone changes the meaning of a word or phrase from one part of the argument to another that person may have committed which of the following fallacies?","choices":["Hypostatization","Appeal to authority","Red herring fallacy","False cause fallacy","Straw man fallacy","Special pleading","Equivocation","Slippery slope fallacy","Ad hominem attack","Question begging epithets"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10889,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to W.D. Ross, prima facie duties are self-evident and not dependent on external factors such as societal norms or personal beliefs.\nAnswer: I","question":"According to Ross, our prima facie duties:","choices":["are only applicable to certain cultures.","are determined by societal norms.","are only valid if they align with personal beliefs.","have no moral significance.","can be altered over time.","can be proven.","cannot be known.","are not objective.","are self-evident."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":10890,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. Jean-Paul Sartre, a prominent existentialist philosopher, argued that if God does not exist, then there is no preordained essence or purpose to human life. This means that humans are entirely free and responsible for creating their own values and meaning in life. Sartre famously stated that \"existence precedes essence,\" implying that individuals must define their own existence through their actions. He also suggested that without a divine moral authority, traditional moral values lose their objective grounding, leading to the idea that \"anything is permissible\" because there are no absolute moral standards imposed from above.\n\nAnswer: E","question":"According to Sartre, if God does not exist, _____.","choices":["man is condemned to be free","moral values still exist","morality is defined by society","man does not exist","anything is permissible","there is no purpose to life","humans are not responsible for their actions","life has no meaning","moral values must come from nature","morals are subjective"],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":10891,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. G.E. Moore, in his work \"Principia Ethica,\" argues that the most fundamental question in ethics is how to define \"good.\" He introduces the concept of the \"naturalistic fallacy\" and emphasizes the importance of understanding what we mean by \"good.\"\nAnswer: F","question":"According to Moore, the most fundamental question in all of ethics is:","choices":["how \"justice\" is to be defined.","whether ethics is a science.","whether morality is subjective.","whether God exists.","whether humans are inherently good or bad.","how “good” is to be defined.","whether life is worth living.","what is the meaning of life.","whether morality is objective.","how \"evil\" is to be defined."],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":10892,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. G.E. Moore, in his work \"Principia Ethica,\" argues that \"good\" is a simple, indefinable quality. This is known as the \"open question argument.\" Therefore, according to Moore, \"good\" cannot be defined. However, other concepts like \"green,\" \"apple,\" and \"horse\" can be defined.\n\nAnswer: A","question":"Which of the following concepts can be defined, according to Moore?","choices":["all of the above","bad","good","green","unicorn","apple","yellow","none of the above","love","horse"],"correct":"J","answer":"A","score":0}
{"number":10893,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Charles L. Stevenson, a prominent figure in emotivism, argues that moral disagreements often involve disagreements in attitude rather than just factual disagreements or disagreements in belief.\nAnswer: G","question":"According to Stevenson, moral disagreements involve:","choices":["disagreement in principles.","disagreement in understanding.","disagreement in experience.","disagreement in practice.","disagreement in interest.","disagreement in theory.","disagreement in attitude.","disagreement in perception.","disagreement in belief.","disagreement in values."],"correct":"E","answer":"G","score":0}
{"number":10894,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. David Gauthier, a contemporary philosopher, is known for his work in moral and political philosophy, particularly his contractarian approach. He argues that moral agreements that are equally favorable to all parties are desirable because they satisfy our desire for fairness.\nAnswer: B","question":"Gauthier claims that moral agreements that are equally favorable to all parties are desirable because they:","choices":["promote a sense of community and unity.","satisfy our desire for fairness.","fulfill the basic needs of all parties.","promote the principle of equality.","maximize the productivity of society.","ensure the preservation of individual rights.","increase the overall happiness of society."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10895,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Elizabeth Anscombe is known for her critique of modern moral philosophy, particularly consequentialism, which is associated with Sidgwick. She argues against the principle of consequentialism, which focuses on the outcomes of actions rather than the intentions behind them.\n\nAnswer: A","question":"Anscombe criticizes Sidgwick on the grounds that:","choices":["he supports the principle of consequentialism.","he endorses the divine law conception of ethics.","he claims that there is a “natural balance” to the universe.","he does not believe in the principle of double effect.","all of the above.","he neglects the role of emotions in ethical decision-making.","he fails to account for the role of virtue in ethics.","he does not distinguish between the foreseen and intended consequences of one’s action.","he argues that morality is subjective.","he overlooks the importance of individual intention in moral actions."],"correct":"H","answer":"A","score":0}
{"number":10896,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to John Stuart Mill, the principle of utility cannot be proven in the traditional sense, but this is not a unique problem for utilitarianism. Instead, it is common to all first principles in moral philosophy.\nAnswer: G","question":"Mill claims that the principle of utility:","choices":["can only be proven through extensive observation and study.","can be proven from principles that are known empirically.","can be proven, but only under certain conditions.","is inherently flawed and therefore cannot be proven.","is a theory that has been widely disproven.","can be proven, but this is unique to the principle of utility.","cannot be proven, but this is common to all first principles.","can be proven, but only by using a complex mathematical model.","cannot be proven, and this is a unique problem for the theory.","can be proven from self-evident principles."],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10897,"response":"Explanation: Let's construct a truth table for the argument:\n\n1. \\(\\neg G \\supset H\\)\n2. \\(\\neg H\\)\n3. / \\(G\\)\n\nWe need to determine if the conclusion \\(G\\) logically follows from the premises.\n\n| \\(G\\) | \\(H\\) | \\(\\neg G\\) | \\(\\neg H\\) | \\(\\neg G \\supset H\\) |\n|------|------|------------|------------|---------------------|\n| T    | T    | F          | F          | T                   |\n| T    | F    | F          | T          | T                   |\n| F    | T    | T          | F          | T                   |\n| F    | F    | T          | T          | F                   |\n\nNow let's analyze the rows where both premises are true:\n\n1. When \\(G = T\\) and \\(H = F\\):\n   - \\(\\neg G = F\\)\n   - \\(\\neg H = T\\)\n   - \\(\\neg G \\supset H = (F \\supset F) = T\\)\n\n2. When \\(G = F\\) and \\(H = F\\):\n   - \\(\\neg G = T\\)\n   - \\(\\neg H = T\\)\n   - \\(\\neg G \\supset H = (T \\supset F) = F\\)\n\nFrom the truth table, we see that when \\(G = F\\) and \\(H = F\\), both premises are true, but the conclusion \\(G\\) is false. This means the argument is invalid.\n\nAnswer: G","question":"Construct a complete truth table for the following argument. Then, using the truth table, determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\n~G ⊃ H\n~H / G","choices":["Invalid. Counterexample when G is false and H is true","Invalid. Counterexample when G is true and H is true","Valid, with G and H both being variable","Invalid. Counterexample when G and H are true","Invalid. Counterexample when G is true and H is false","Invalid. Counterexample when both G and H are false","Invalid. Counterexample when G is false and H is false","Invalid. Counterexample when H is true and G is false","Valid"],"correct":"I","answer":"G","score":0}
{"number":10898,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The notation \"Ixyz\" means \"x introduces y to z\". Therefore, José (j) introduces Wilma (w) to Kevin (k) should be translated as \"Ijwk\".\nAnswer: D","question":"Select the best translation into predicate logic. José introduces Wilma to Kevin. (j: José; k: Kevin; w: Wilma; Ixyz: x introduces y to z)","choices":["Ijkw","Iwkj","Iwjk","Ijwk","Ikjw"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10899,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"Cecilia breaks my heart if, and only if, Maria is either a problem or a girl\" can be translated into predicate logic as follows:\n\n- Let Bc represent \"Cecilia breaks my heart.\"\n- Let Pm represent \"Maria is a problem.\"\n- Let Gm represent \"Maria is a girl.\"\n\nThe phrase \"if, and only if\" indicates a biconditional relationship (≡). The phrase \"either...or\" indicates a disjunction (∨).\n\nTherefore, the correct translation is: Bc ≡ (Pm ∨ Gm).\n\nAnswer: J","question":"Select the best translation into predicate logic: Cecilia breaks my heart if, and only if, Maria is either a problem or a girl.","choices":["Bc ⊃ (Pm ⊃ Gm)","Cb ⊃ (Pm • Gm)","Bc ≡ (Pm ⊃ Gm)","Bc ⊃ (Pm ∨ Gm)","Bc ≡ (Pm • Gm)","Cb ⊃ (Pm ∨ Gm)","Bc ≡ (Gm • Pm)","Cb ⊃ (Gm ∨ Pm)","Bc ⊃ (Pm • Gm)","Bc ≡ (Pm ∨ Gm)"],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":10900,"response":"To determine the logical relationship between the propositions \\( I \\equiv \\neg H \\) and \\( \\neg(\\neg I \\equiv H) \\), we need to construct a truth table for both propositions and compare their truth values.\n\nLet's define the propositions:\n1. \\( P_1: I \\equiv \\neg H \\)\n2. \\( P_2: \\neg(\\neg I \\equiv H) \\)\n\nFirst, let's construct the truth table:\n\n| \\( I \\) | \\( H \\) | \\( \\neg H \\) | \\( I \\equiv \\neg H \\) | \\( \\neg I \\) | \\( \\neg I \\equiv H \\) | \\( \\neg(\\neg I \\equiv H) \\) |\n|--------|--------|-------------|----------------------|-------------|----------------------|--------------------------|\n| T      | T      | F           | F                    | F           | F                    | T                        |\n| T      | F      | T           | T                    | F           | T                    | F                        |\n| F      | T      | F           | T                    | T           | T                    | F                        |\n| F      | F      | T           | F                    | T           | F                    | T                        |\n\nNow, let's analyze the truth values of the two propositions:\n\n- For \\( P_1: I \\equiv \\neg H \\):\n  - When \\( I = T, H = T\\): \\( I \\equiv \\neg H = F\\)\n  - When \\( I = T, H = F\\): \\( I \\equiv \\neg H = T\\)\n  - When \\( I = F, H = T\\): \\( I \\equiv \\neg H = T\\)\n  - When \\( I = F, H = F\\): \\( I \\equiv \\neg H = F\\)\n\n- For \\( P_2: \\neg(\\neg I \\equiv H) \\):\n  - When \\( I = T, H = T\\): \\( (\\neg I = F) ≡ (H = T)\\rightarrow (F ≡ T)=F→\\neg(F)=T\\)\n  - When \\( I = T, H = F\\):\\( (\\neg I=F)≡(H=F)\\rightarrow (F≡F)=T→\\neg(T)=F\\)\n  - When\\(I=F,H=T):(\\negI=T≡H=T)\\rightarrow(T≡T)=T→\\neg(T)=F\n  - When\\(I=F,H=F):(\\negI=T≡H=F)\\rightarrow(T≡F)=F→\\neg(F)=T\n\nFrom the truth table, we can see that the truth values of the two propositions are opposite in all cases. Therefore, they are contradictory.\n\nAnswer: G","question":" Construct a complete truth table for the following pairs of propositions. Then, using the truth tables, determine whether the statements are logically equivalent or contradictory. If neither, determine whether they are consistent or inconsistent. Justify your answers.\nI ≡ ~H and ~(~I ≡ H)","choices":["Neither logically equivalent nor contradictory, but consistent","Both contradictory and inconsistent","Neither logically equivalent, contradictory, consistent, nor inconsistent","Both contradictory and consistent","Both logically equivalent and consistent","Logically equivalent","Contradictory","Inconsistent","Neither logically equivalent nor contradictory, but inconsistent","Both logically equivalent and contradictory"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10901,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The predicate \"Ixyz\" means \"x introduces y to z\". In the sentence \"Kevin is introduced to José by Wilma,\" Wilma is the one doing the introducing (x), Kevin is the one being introduced (y), and José is the one to whom Kevin is being introduced (z). Therefore, the correct translation would be \"Iwkj\".\n\nAnswer: I","question":"Select the best translation into predicate logic. Kevin is introduced to José by Wilma. (j: José; k: Kevin; w: Wilma; Ixyz: x introduces y to z)","choices":["Ijkw","Iwjw","Iwjk","Ijwk","Ikkj","Ijjk","Iwwk","Ikjw","Iwkj"],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":10902,"response":"Explanation: Let's construct the truth table step by step to determine the validity of the argument.\n\n1. List all possible truth values for Q, R, and S.\n2. Calculate Q ≡ R for each combination.\n3. Calculate S ∨ Q for each combination.\n4. Calculate ~(S ∨ Q) for each combination.\n5. Determine if ~(S ∨ Q) implies R.\n\n| Q | R | S | Q ≡ R | S ∨ Q | ~(S ∨ Q) | Conclusion: ~(S ∨ Q) / R |\n|---|---|---|-------|-------|----------|-------------------------|\n| T | T | T |   T   |   T   |    F     |            F            |\n| T | T | F |   T   |   T   |    F     |            F            |\n| T | F | T |   F   |   T   |    F     |            F            |\n| T | F | F |   F   |   T   |    F     |            F            |\n| F | T | T |   F   |   T   |    F     |            F            |\n| F | T | F |   F   |   F   |    T     |            T            |\n| F | F | T |   T   |   T   |    F     |            F            |\n| F | F | F |   T   |   F   |    T     |\n\nFrom the table, we see that there are cases where both premises are true but the conclusion is false, indicating that the argument is invalid. Specifically:\n\n- When \\(Q = \\text{false}\\), \\(S = \\text{true}\\), and \\(R = \\text{false}\\), both premises are true but the conclusion is false.\n\nAnswer: A","question":" Construct a complete truth table for the following argument. Then, using the truth table, determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\nQ ≡ R\n~(S ∨ Q) / R","choices":["Invalid. Counterexample when Q, S, and R are false","Invalid. Counterexample when Q is false and S and R are true","Invalid. Counterexample when Q is true, S is false, and R is true","Valid. No counterexample exists","Invalid. Counterexample when Q and S are true and R is false","Invalid. Counterexample when S is true and Q and R are false","Invalid. Counterexample when R is true and Q and S are false","Invalid. Counterexample when Q and R are true and S is false","Valid","Invalid. Counterexample when Q is true and S and R are false"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10903,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"Johnny came late\" can be translated into predicate logic by using a single predicate that represents \"came late\" and applying it to Johnny. If we let \"Lj\" represent \"Johnny came late,\" then the correct translation is simply \"Lj.\"\nAnswer: B","question":"Select the best translation into predicate logic: Johnny came late.","choices":["Lj ∨ Cj","Lj","L∧j","jC","j ∨ L","Lj ∧ Cj","Cj ∨ Lj","Lx","jL","Cx"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10904,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to John Stuart Mill, the value of a particular pleasure depends on both its quantity and its quality. Mill distinguishes between higher (intellectual) and lower (bodily) pleasures and argues that some pleasures are intrinsically more valuable than others.\nAnswer: I","question":" According to Mill, the value of a particular pleasure depends on","choices":["its rarity or frequency.","societal norms and values.","the individual's personal preference.","the amount of effort required to obtain it.","the potential pain that might accompany it.","its quantity alone.","its quality alone.","neither its quantity nor its quality.","both its quantity and its quality.","the duration of the pleasure."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":10905,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. Nathanson is known for his work on the ethics of punishment and has argued against the death penalty. He supports a form of retributivism that focuses on proportionality rather than equality or other forms. Proportional retributivism holds that the severity of the punishment should be proportionate to the severity of the crime.\n\nAnswer: A","question":" Nathanson supports which of the following kinds of retributivism?","choices":["proportional","equality","retaliatory","punitive","compensatory","absolute","restorative","corrective","preventive","consequential"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10906,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on environmental ethics for help. Baxter's argument focuses on anthropocentric views, which prioritize human interests and welfare in environmental considerations.\nAnswer: J","question":" Baxter argues that we should view our treatment of the environment as a matter of various trade-offs whose aim is","choices":["to minimize damage incurred by all individual living beings.","to promote the functional integrity of ecosystems.","to minimize the suffering of all sentient creatures.","to ensure the survival of endangered species.","to minimize damage to the ozone layer.","to achieve a balance between human needs and wildlife preservation.","to promote sustainable development and renewable energy use.","to maximize economic benefit.","to limit greenhouse gas emissions.","to promote human welfare."],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":10907,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on environmental ethics for help. Baxter is known for his anthropocentric view, which prioritizes human interests over those of animals or the environment. According to Baxter, a policy that does not harm human beings would be considered morally acceptable.\nAnswer: C","question":" If it were known that a policy would wipe out several animal species without negatively affecting human beings, Baxter would most likely say that","choices":["this policy is morally problematic because it disrupts the natural order.","this policy is morally problematic because it negatively impacts biodiversity.","this policy is morally acceptable because it does not harm human beings.","this policy is morally unproblematic.","this policy is morally obligatory because it prioritizes human beings.","this policy is morally unacceptable because it eliminates several animal species.","this policy is morally obligatory because the environment ought not to exist.","this policy is morally problematic because it damages the integrity of the ecosystem.","this policy is morally problematic because it harms the environment."],"correct":"D","answer":"C","score":0}
{"number":10908,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the context provided in the initial prompt about Arthur's stance on moral obligation and rights. Arthur differentiates between negative rights (rights of noninterference) and positive rights (rights of recipience). He argues that a duty to help a stranger is not a noninterference right but a positive right, which would require a contract or agreement. Since the affluent haven't entered into such a contract or agreement with the poor, Arthur believes the poor do not have a right to aid from the affluent.\n\nAnswer: B","question":" What is the main reason why Arthur doesn't think that the poor have a right to aid from the affluent?","choices":["Arthur believes that the provision of aid undermines the principles of free-market capitalism.","This kind of right would require a contract or agreement, and the affluent haven't entered into a contract or agreement with the poor.","The consequences of helping the poor would be worse than the consequences of not helping them.","The right to aid is a negative right.","Arthur contends that the concept of 'rights' is subjective and can't be universally applied.","Arthur believes that the affluent have earned their wealth and should not be obligated to share it.","Arthur believes that aid should only be given voluntarily, not out of obligation.","Arthur thinks that aid only perpetuates poverty and does not solve the root cause.","The poor are responsible for their own situation, according to Arthur.","Persons can never have a right to aid from anyone."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10909,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Douglas N. Husak and Peter de Marneffe's book \"The Legalization of Drugs\" discusses various arguments for and against drug prohibition. One of de Marneffe's responses to the objection that drug prohibition would be paternalistic is that it is done for the benefit of others, not just those who wish to produce or sell drugs, thus making it not paternalistic in an objectionable sense.\nAnswer: J","question":" Which of the following is one of de Marneffe's responses to the objection that drug prohibition would be paternalistic?","choices":["Paternalism is always justified when the paternalistic practices truly are in the best interest of those affected.","Drug prohibition would be paternalistic, but its consequences would be good enough to outweigh considerations about paternalism.","Paternalism is a positive trait when it helps guide individuals away from harmful behaviors like drug use.","Drug prohibition would be a form of societal control, not paternalism.","Drug prohibition would be targeted to adults, and one can only be paternalistic toward children.","Drug prohibition would be paternalistic, but it is a necessary evil to maintain order and protect public health.","The concept of paternalism doesn't apply to the issue of drug prohibition.","Drug prohibition is not paternalistic as it does not impose a 'parent-like' authority over individuals.","Drug prohibition would not be paternalistic because it would protect society from the harmful effects of drugs.","Drug prohibition would be done for the benefit of others, not the benefit of those who wish to produce/sell drugs, so it is not paternalistic in an objectionable sense."],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":10910,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to scholarly articles and philosophical discussions for help. According to Lina Papadaki, sexual objectification involves the denial of a person's humanity.\nAnswer: D","question":" Papadaki argues that","choices":["sexual objectification is not always wrong.","sexual objectification involves the total reduction of a person to an object.","sexual objectification is not explainable in Kantian terms.","sexual objectification involves the denial of a person's humanity."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10911,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics and criminal justice for help. Nathanson's arguments against the death penalty suggest that even murderers do not forfeit their right to life, as he argues against capital punishment. However, the question asks what right they forfeit according to Nathanson. Given his stance, it is likely that he believes they forfeit their right to freedom (i.e., through imprisonment) rather than life.\nAnswer: H","question":" According to Nathanson, criminals who commit murder forfeit their right to","choices":["privacy.","respect.","rehabilitation programs.","dignity.","free speech.","humane treatment.","personal property.","freedom.","fair trial.","life."],"correct":"A","answer":"H","score":0}
{"number":10912,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles and other authoritative sources on \"The Coddling of the American Mind\" by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt for help. One suggestion they make to challenge vindictive protectiveness is to discourage the use of trigger warnings, as they believe these can contribute to a culture of overprotection and hinder resilience.\nAnswer: J","question":" One suggestion that Lukianoff and Haidt make to challenge vindictive protectiveness is","choices":["to implement stricter guidelines for classroom discussions.","to promote greater understanding of historical and contemporary oppression.","to increase the number of safe spaces on campus.","to mandate sensitivity training for all students.","to increase funding for mental health services on campus.","to encourage self-censorship among students.","none of the above.","to ban controversial speakers from campus.","to defund the Department of Education.","have colleges and universities officially and strongly discourage trigger warnings."],"correct":"I","answer":"J","score":0}
{"number":10913,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics and animal rights for help. One common argument made by defenders of meat-eating is that the suffering of animals counts less because humans are rational beings, whereas animals are not. This argument is often associated with philosophical views that place a higher value on rationality and cognitive abilities.\nAnswer: B","question":" According to some defenders of meat-eating, the suffering of animals counts less than the suffering of humans (if at all) because","choices":["animals can tolerate more suffering than humans can.","humans are rational and animals are not.","humans have a soul, while animals do not.","animals are rational and humans are not.","animals lack the capacity for suffering, and humans do not.","animals are not sentient beings, unlike humans.","animals do not have emotions, while humans do.","humans are superior to animals in the food chain.","animals are designed by nature to endure suffering."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10914,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on political philosophy for help. Joseph Carens is known for his arguments in favor of more open borders based on liberal egalitarian principles. He argues that liberal egalitarianism, which emphasizes equality and fairness, should generally support more openness toward immigrants and refugees.\nAnswer: H","question":" Carens's main conclusion is that","choices":["liberal egalitarian objections to anticosmopolitanism do not succeed.","Carens believes that liberal egalitarianism supports closed borders and strict immigration policies.","Carens argues that liberal egalitarianism is rooted in anti-immigration sentiments.","egalitarianism is founded on sentiments of envy and is therefore unjustified.","Carens concludes that liberal egalitarianism inherently supports anti-cosmopolitanism.","Carens concludes that egalitarianism is a justifiable sentiment, irrespective of immigration policies.","Carens asserts that liberal egalitarianism does not have a clear stance on immigration policies.","liberal egalitarianism should almost always press for more openness toward immigrants and refugees.","liberal egalitarianism, contrary to appearances, entails that only closed border immigration policies are acceptable.","Carens suggests that liberal egalitarianism always supports the concept of open borders."],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":10915,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Michael Huemer argues that the harms of drug use are not significantly different from or more harmful than other legally permitted activities. This encompasses the ideas that they are not more harmful on average, not differing significantly in nature, and not more detrimental to a person's character.\nAnswer: D","question":" Huemer argues that there is no reason to think that the harms of drug use are in an important sense","choices":["more harmful on average than legally permitted harmful activities.","differing from the harms of other legally permitted harmful activities.","more detrimental to a person's character than otherslegally permitted harmful activities.","All of the above."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10916,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on moral theories for help. The idea of \"using someone as a mere means\" is a key concept in Kantian ethics. Immanuel Kant argued that we should treat humanity, whether in ourselves or in others, always as an end and never merely as a means to an end.\nAnswer: B","question":" The idea of \"using someone as a mere means\" is centrally relevant to which of the following moral theories?","choices":["utilitarianism","Kantianism","egoism","existentialism","natural law theory","virtue ethics","relativism","divine command theory","hedonism","consequentialism"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10917,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on terrorism and Michael Walzer's works for help. Michael Walzer, a prominent political theorist, discusses various justifications often used to excuse terrorism. These include arguments that terrorism is a necessary evil, benefits oppressed groups, is driven by economic factors, is a legitimate form of self-defense, is a method of political influence, is a response to unjust government actions, and is a last resort. However, the idea that \"terrorism is a form of freedom of speech\" does not align with the typical excuses discussed by Walzer.\n\nAnswer: A","question":" Which of the following is not one of the four main excuses for terrorism that Michael Walzer discusses?","choices":["Terrorism is a form of freedom of speech.","Terrorism is a necessary evil.","Terrorism benefits oppressed groups.","Terrorism is driven by economic factors.","Terrorism is a legitimate form of self-defense.","All political activity is terroristic.","Terrorism is a method of political influence.","Terrorism is a response to unjust government actions.","Terrorism is a last resort.","Terrorism is an expression of religious beliefs."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10918,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on the death penalty for help. The question asks for a consequence that is not potentially negative. All the options except one are negative consequences of imposing the death penalty. Option I, \"the prevention of future murders,\" is often argued as a positive consequence by proponents of the death penalty.\n\nAnswer: I","question":" Which of the following is not one of the potentially negative consequences of imposing the death penalty?","choices":["the execution of innocent persons","the diminishing of state moral authority","the creation of martyrs","the inequality of application across social classes","the incitement effect","the emotional trauma for the executioners","the promotion of a culture of violence","great financial cost","the prevention of future murders"],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":10919,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on environmental ethics for help. According to the philosopher Thomas Hill, instead of focusing on why destroying the environment might be immoral, he wants to explore why people who preserve the environment might be good people.\nAnswer: C","question":" Instead of asking why the act of destroying the environment might be immoral, Hill wants to ask","choices":["how the decision to preserve the environment benefits the environment.","how the destruction of the environment affects the economy.","why people who preserve the environment might be good people.","how destroying the environment affects future generations.","why the act of destroying nature might be immoral.","whether plants have interests.","why people who destroy the environment might be bad people.","if destroying the environment is legally punishable.","whether nature has a right to exist.","whether animals have rights."],"correct":"G","answer":"C","score":0}
{"number":10920,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Hinduism for help. In Hinduism, \"murtis\" are physical representations or idols of deities used in worship.\nAnswer: F","question":" What can murtis be translated as?","choices":["Sacrifices","Blessings","Offerings","Prayers","Apparitions","Idols","Rituals","Scriptures","Spirits","Symbols"],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":10921,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. According to the provided context, Guru Nanak had a transformative encounter with God when he was about 30 years old. Following this experience, he began preaching the message of the divine Name.\nAnswer: H","question":" How old was Guru Nanak when he started to preach the message of the divine Name?","choices":["40","55","35","33","52","50","25","30","45","20"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":10922,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Sikhism for help. Sikhism emphasizes meditation on God's name (Naam Japna) and prayer as the key to liberation. This practice is central to Sikh spiritual life and is considered essential for achieving liberation.\n\nAnswer: G","question":" Where is the key to liberation found within Sikhism?","choices":["In faith in God","In the strict adherence to the Five Ks","In ascetic renunciation","In the practice of yoga and other physical disciplines","In acts of charity and service","In the community","In meditation and prayer","In the rejection of all worldly possessions","In the life of the householder"],"correct":"I","answer":"G","score":0}
{"number":10923,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Jainism for help. The first Jaina temples are known to have appeared around the fifth century BCE.\nAnswer: D","question":"When did the first Jaina temples appear?","choices":["Eighteenth century CE","Eleventh century BCE","First century CE","Fifth century BCE","Second century CE","Tenth century BCE","Sixth century CE","Third century BCE","Fifth century CE","Eighth century CE"],"correct":"I","answer":"D","score":0}
{"number":10924,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on the Epic of Gilgamesh for help. The Old Babylonian version of the Epic of Gilgamesh dates back to around the 18th century BCE. The Standard Babylonian version, edited by Sîn-lēqi-unninni, is dated to somewhere between the 13th and 10th centuries BCE, which places it toward the end of the second millennium BCE.\n\nAnswer: C","question":"When was the Old Babylonian version of Gilgamesh modified into the standard version?","choices":["Toward the end of the first millennium BCE","Towards the middle of the first millennium BCE","Toward the end of the second millennium BCE","Toward the middle of the second millennium BCE","At the start of the second millennium BCE","In the mid-first millennium BCE","At the start of the first millennium BCE","Toward the end of the third millennium BCE","At the start of the third millennium BCE","In the middle of the third millennium BCE"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10925,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Christian mystics for help. Julian of Norwich is known for her optimistic theology, particularly her belief that even sin and evil are ultimately part of God's plan and reveal divine love more clearly.\nAnswer: F","question":"Which mystic believed that evil was a distortion that reveals divine love more clearly?","choices":["Thomas Aquinas","Catherine of Siena","Teresa of Avila","Hildegard of Bingen","John of the Cross","Julian of Norwich","Bernard of Clairvaux","Ignatius of Loyola","Francis of Assisi","Meister Eckhart"],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":10926,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Confucian philosophers for help. Among the listed philosophers, Wang Yangming is known for his focus on qi (or ch'i) and is often described as a mystic due to his emphasis on the unity of knowledge and action and the cultivation of the mind.\n\nAnswer: F","question":" Which Confucian philosopher is described as a mystic due to his focus on qi (or ch'i)?","choices":["Zhuangzi","Dao","Xunzi","Laozi","Zisi","Wang Yangming","Mencius","Confucius","Han Feizi","Mozi"],"correct":"G","answer":"F","score":0}
{"number":10927,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy described involves dismissing a source of evidence by claiming the source is flawed without a true relationship between the alleged flaw and the reliability of the source. This is known as \"poisoning the well.\"\n\nAnswer: I","question":"Which of the following fallacies is a way of suppressing evidence that eliminates a source of evidence from consideration by claiming the source is flawed, when there is no true relationship between the alleged flaw and the reliability of the source?","choices":["straw man","snob appeal","bandwagon fallacy","appeal to anonymous authority","false dilemma","significance","appeal to ignorance","argumentum ad populum","poisoning the well","cherry picking"],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":10928,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy of appeal to pride involves convincing someone to accept a claim based on their favorable characteristics or qualities, rather than on relevant evidence or logic. This matches option (A).\nAnswer: A","question":"Which of the following describes he fallacy of appeal to pride?","choices":["arguing someone should accept a claim based only on the evidence that he or she has the favorable characteristics to understand the truth of the claim.","arguing that a claim should be accepted based only on the evidence that it's in line with traditional or cultural beliefs.","arguing that a claim should be accepted based only on the evidence that it's supported by a famous or respected figure.","arguing that a claim should be accepted based only on the evidence that rejecting it will lead to negative consequences.","arguing that an act or series of acts should be carried out because they will have no significant consequences, when there is no evidence for the lack of significant effects.","arguing something should be done based only on evidence that it's been done that way in the past, or should be believed only because it's been believed for a long time.","arguing that a claim should be accepted based only on the evidence that it's widely accepted by the public.","arguing that a claim should be accepted based only on the evidence that it's appealing or desirable.","arguing a claim should be accepted based only on evidence that unidentified authorities accept it.","arguing that a claim should be accepted based only on the evidence that it's been scientifically proven, without providing the actual proof."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10929,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy described is when someone concludes that a person couldn't have done something bad because they have good qualities. This is known as the \"laudatory personality\" fallacy, where positive traits are used to dismiss negative actions.\nAnswer: D","question":"Which of the following fallacies happens when someone concludes that someone couldn't have done something bad because he or she has good qualities?","choices":["Hasty generalization","Guilt by association","Reprehensible personality","Laudatory personality","Ad hominem","Circular reasoning","Red herring","Slippery slope","Straw man fallacy","False cause"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10930,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The \"appeal to beliefs\" fallacy is also known as the \"appeal to tradition\" fallacy. This fallacy occurs when something is considered true or better because it is traditionally believed or has been practiced for a long time.\n\nAnswer: B","question":"Appeal to beliefs is another name for which of the following fallacies?","choices":["ad nauseam","appeal to tradition","solid slope","self evident truths"],"correct":"D","answer":"B","score":0}
{"number":10931,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The natural law fallacy, also known as the appeal to nature, is a specific type of false criteria. It involves assuming that what is natural is inherently good or right, and what is unnatural is bad or wrong.\n\nAnswer: C","question":"The natural law fallacy is a specific type of","choices":["false analogy","false cause","false criteria","false sign"],"correct":"A","answer":"C","score":0}
{"number":10932,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. Equivocation occurs when a word is used in two different senses in an argument, leading to a misleading conclusion. In this case, Schumacher uses the term \"appropriate technology\" to counter the objection by implying that the opposite would be \"inappropriate technology,\" which no one would support. This is a clever rhetorical move but does not involve any of the other listed fallacies like inconsistency, appeal to authority, or prejudicial language.\nAnswer: A","question":"E.F. Schumacher, famous economist, in an article in the Atlantic (April 1979): Fifteen months [after I had advised that rural India should have a technology intermediate between the hoe and the tractor,] an all-India conference on intermediate technology was arranged. (They still didn't like the term [intermediate], so they called it appropriate technology. That's all right: when I come to India and somebody says, \"Oh, Mr. Schumacher, I don't believe in appropriate technology\", I just look him straight in the face and say, \"Oh, that's splendid. Do you believe in inappropriate technology?\")","choices":["Equivocation","Inconsistency","Appeal to Authority","Prejudicial Language"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10933,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. According to Plato, true beauty is an ideal form that transcends the physical world. It is not found in everyday objects or art but exists as a perfect and immutable concept in the realm of forms, which is beyond our physical reality.\n\nAnswer: C","question":"Plato's view is that true beauty is _____.","choices":["found in everyday objects","only found in art","not of this world","found only in human-made objects","only found in the human body","a materialistic concept only appreciated by the wealthy","only found in the mind's understanding","nonexistent","everywhere in the natural world","a subjective concept that differs from person to person"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10934,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. George Berkeley, an idealist philosopher, famously asserted \"esse est percipi\" which means \"to be is to be perceived.\" This means that for something to exist, it must be perceived. Therefore, existing and perceiving are one and the same thing according to Berkeley's philosophy.\n\nAnswer: D","question":"Berkeley asserts that existing and perceiving are _____.","choices":["imaginary","interdependent","both nonexistent","one and the same thing","two distinct things","sequential","mutually exclusive","dichotomous","unrelated","both illusions"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10935,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy and mythology for help. The statement suggests that myth provides a foundational framework that makes reasoning possible, rather than being something that is itself explained by reason. This aligns most closely with the idea that myth reveals relationships rather than explaining them in a rational way.\nAnswer: D","question":"\"There is no rationale for myth because it is through myth that reason itself is defined.\"  This means that:","choices":["metaphysicians are justified in reasoning as they do because there is only one true answer about being.","mythos is ultimately based on logos, just as myth is ultimately based on reasoning or thinking.","myth and reason are interchangeable terms, each defining the other depending on the situation.","myth does not \"explain\" how things are related as much as it simply reveals them as related.","myth and reason are completely separate entities with no relation to each other.","myth is a form of reason because it helps to explain the unknown.","myths can be explained by reason, but reason cannot be explained by myths.","myth and reason are the same: \"myth\" defines \"reason,\" and \"reason\" defines \"myth.\""],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10936,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. William Paley's argument from design compares the complexity of a watch to that of nature, suggesting that nature's complexity implies a designer. The key difference he notes is that nature is not created by human hands.\nAnswer: H","question":"Paley maintains that the key difference between the “contrivance” of a watch and that of nature is that the latter is _____.","choices":["dependent on human intervention","more natural","smaller and less complex","simpler","more easily understood","greater and grander","less functional","not created by human hands","subject to change over time","older"],"correct":"F","answer":"H","score":0}
{"number":10937,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics for help. A prima facie duty, as introduced by W.D. Ross, is a duty that appears to be binding and obligatory unless it is overridden or outweighed by another duty in a particular situation.\nAnswer: B","question":"A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act in virtue of which the act:","choices":["seems to be right, although this might be illusory.","tends to be right, although this might be outweighed by other considerations.","is right.","is the first thing that an agent ought to do, above all else."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10938,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. John Rawls argues that parties in the original position, behind the veil of ignorance, would not accept utilitarianism because it could lead to unjust outcomes. Specifically, they would reject it because it could justify sacrificing the rights of some individuals for the greater good, which is too risky for those who do not know their own position in society.\nAnswer: B","question":"Rawls argues that parties in the original position would not accept utilitarianism because:","choices":["it is too difficult to determine which policies would maximize happiness.","doing so would be too risky.","it requires us to do unjust things, such as executing innocent people.","they would be behind the veil of ignorance and thus would never have heard of utilitarianism."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10939,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to David Hume, reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions, meaning that reason should serve our passions rather than direct or contradict them.\nAnswer: G","question":"According to Hume, reason:","choices":["should be used to direct our passions.","should operate completely independently of our passions.","should be completely suppressed by our passions.","should be ignored when it comes to our passions.","should be used to validate our passions.","should be used to contradict our passions.","should serve our passions.","should be used to intensify our passions.","should be used to rationalize our passions.","should be used to extinguish our passions."],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10940,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Joel Feinberg, a prominent philosopher, argues that the best way to pursue happiness is indirectly. He suggests that focusing directly on achieving happiness often leads to frustration and failure. Instead, engaging in meaningful activities and pursuits that are not directly aimed at achieving happiness can lead to a more fulfilling and happy life.\n\nAnswer: G","question":"Feinberg claims that the best way to pursue happiness is to:","choices":["strive for success.","pursue knowledge.","pursue happiness.","focus on material wealth.","none of the above.","help others to be happy.","forget about happiness.","live in the moment.","avoid pain.","pursue pleasure."],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10941,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy of mind for help. The idea that mental states are dispositions to behave in particular ways in certain circumstances is known as logical behaviorism.\nAnswer: C","question":"The idea that mental states are dispositions to behave in particular ways in certain circumstances is known as _____.","choices":["functionalism","psychoanalytic theory","logical behaviorism","radical behaviorism","methodological behaviorism","structuralism","cognitive psychology","eliminative materialism","dualism","logical nominalism"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10942,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to Henry Sidgwick, a prominent utilitarian philosopher, the morality of an action is judged by its consequences. Anscombe critiques Sidgwick's view by focusing on the importance of intentions and moral rules, but Sidgwick himself emphasizes the expected outcomes of actions.\nAnswer: F","question":"Anscombe claims that on Sidgwick’s view, the badness of an action must be estimated in light of:","choices":["whether it upholds social justice.","whether it violates divine law.","whether it violates any duties.","its potential for causing harm.","the actor's intentions.","its expected consequences.","its actual consequences.","its potential benefits.","its alignment with personal values.","the cultural norms of the time."],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":10943,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on classical philosophy for help. According to Cicero, immorality is repugnant to Nature, and expediency is in accord with Nature.\nAnswer: D","question":"According to Cicero, immorality is __________, and expediency is __________.","choices":["indifferent to Nature; in accord with Nature.","in accord with Nature; indifferent to Nature.","in accord with Nature; in accord with Nature.","repugnant to Nature; in accord with Nature.","beneficial to Nature; in accord with Nature.","repugnant to Nature; indifferent to Nature.","repugnant to Nature; repugnant to Nature.","indifferent to Nature; repugnant to Nature.","beneficial to Nature; repugnant to Nature.","in accord with Nature; repugnant to Nature."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10944,"response":"Explanation: Let's analyze the given premises step by step:\n\n1. \\( E \\supset \\neg F \\)\n2. \\( \\neg F \\supset G \\)\n3. \\( \\neg G \\)\n\nWe need to find an immediate (one-step) consequence of these premises.\n\nFrom premise 3 (\\( \\neg G \\)), we know that \\( G \\) is false. \n\nUsing premise 2 (\\( \\neg F \\supset G \\)), if \\( G \\) is false, then \\( \\neg F \\) must also be false (because if the antecedent of a true implication is false, the implication holds). Therefore, \\( F \\) must be true.\n\nGiven that \\( F \\) is true, let's see which proposition matches this conclusion directly:\n\nA. \\( ~~F \\) simplifies to \\( F \\), which matches our conclusion.\nB. \\( F \\supset ~~G \\) simplifies to \\( F \\supset G \\), which does not match our immediate conclusion.\nC. \\( ~E \\supset F \\) does not directly follow from our premises.\nD. \\( E \\supset G \\) does not directly follow from our premises.\nE. \\( G \\supset F \\) does not directly follow from our premises.\nF. \\( E \\supset F \\) does not directly follow from our premises.\nG. \\( F \\supset G \\) does not directly follow from our premises.\nH. \\( G \\supset E\\) does not directly follow from our premises.\nI. \\( ~G\\supset ~F\\) does not directly follow from our premises.\nJ. \\( F\\supset E\\) does not directly follow from our premises.\n\nThe only proposition that matches our immediate conclusion is A (\\( ~~F\\)).\n\nAnswer: A","question":"Which of the following propositions is an immediate (one-step) consequence in PL of the given premises?\nE ⊃ ~F\n~F ⊃ G\n~G","choices":["~~F","F ⊃ ~~G","~E ⊃ F","E ⊃ G","G ⊃ F","E ⊃ F","F ⊃ G","G ⊃ E","~G ⊃ ~F","F ⊃ E"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10945,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"All planets are smaller than Jupiter\" can be translated into predicate logic as follows:\n\n- Let \\( Px \\) denote \"x is a planet\".\n- Let \\( Sxy \\) denote \"x is smaller than y\".\n- \\( j \\) represents Jupiter.\n\nThe correct translation would state that for all x, if x is a planet, then x is smaller than Jupiter. This corresponds to the logical form \\( (∀x)(Px ⊃ Sxj) \\).\n\nAnswer: B","question":" Select the best translation into predicate logic. All planets are smaller than Jupiter. (j: Jupiter; Px: x is a planet; Sxy: x is smaller than y)","choices":["(∀x)(Px • Sjx)","(∀x)(Px ⊃ Sxj)","(∃x)(Px • Sjx)","(∀x)(Px ⊃ Sjx)","(∃x)(Px • Sxj)","(∀x)(Px • Sxj)","(∀x)(Sxj ⊃ Px)","(∀x)(Sjx ⊃ Px)","(∃x)(Px ⊃ Sxj)","(∃x)(Px ⊃ Sjx)"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10946,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The predicate \"Mxyz\" means \"x moves to y from z\". In the sentence \"Marco moves from Italy to Spain,\" Marco is the subject (x), Spain is the destination (y), and Italy is the origin (z). Therefore, the correct translation would be \"Mmsi\".\n\nAnswer: E","question":"Select the best translation into predicate logic. Marco moves from Italy to Spain. (i: Italy; m: Marco; s: Spain; Mxyz: x moves to y from z)","choices":["Mism","Mssi","Msim","Mmis","Mmsi","Mims"],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":10947,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The given proposition is (∀x){Ax ⊃ (∀y)[(Hy • Ly) ⊃ ∼Bxy]}, which translates to \"For all x, if x is an apartment, then for all y, if y is a house and y is large, then x is not bigger than y.\" This means that no apartment is bigger than any large house.\nAnswer: C","question":" Select the best English interpretation of the given proposition, using the following translation key: Ax: x is an apartment Hx: x is a house Lx: x is large Bxy: x is bigger than y (∀x){Ax ⊃ (∀y)[(Hy • Ly) ⊃ ∼Bxy]}","choices":["No large house is bigger than some apartments.","All apartments are not bigger than some large house.","No apartment is bigger than any large house.","No large house is bigger than all apartments.","All large houses are bigger than any apartment.","No apartment is smaller than any large house.","All large houses are not bigger than some apartment.","Some apartments are not bigger than all large houses.","Some large houses are not bigger than all apartments.","All apartments are bigger than any large house."],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10948,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. In a conditional proposition, the antecedent is the \"if\" part of the statement. The given proposition is: \"The Bees win their first game only if either the Aardvarks or the Chipmunks do not win their first games.\" This can be rewritten as: \"If the Bees win their first game, then either the Aardvarks or the Chipmunks do not win their first games.\"\n\nHere, \"The Bees win their first game\" is the antecedent.\n\nAnswer: H","question":"Identify the antecedent of the following conditional proposition: The Bees win their first game only if either the Aardvarks or the Chipmunks do not win their first games.","choices":["The Bees do not win their first game.","Both the Aardvarks and the Chipmunks do not win their first games.","The Chipmunks do not win their first game.","The Chipmunks win their first game.","Both the Aardvarks and the Chipmunks win their first games.","Either the Aardvarks or the Chipmunks do not win their first games.","The Aardvarks do not win their first game.","The Bees win their first game.","The Aardvarks win their first game.","Either the Aardvarks or the Chipmunks win their first games."],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":10949,"response":"Explanation: Let's break down the sentence step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence has two parts:\n\n1. \"England's importing beef is a sufficient condition for France's subsidizing agriculture.\"\n   This can be symbolized as \\( E \\supset F \\).\n\n2. \"China doesn't promote human rights when and only when South Africa supplies diamonds.\"\n   This can be symbolized as \\( \\sim C \\equiv S \\).\n\nSo, the entire sentence can be translated as:\n\"Either \\( E \\supset F \\) or \\( \\sim C \\equiv S \\).\"\n\nAmong the given options, the one that matches this translation is:\n\\( (E \\supset F) \\lor (\\sim C \\equiv S) \\).\n\nAnswer: I","question":" Which of the given formulas of PL is the best symbolization of the following sentence?\nEither England's importing beef is a sufficient condition for France's subsidizing agriculture, or China doesn't promote human rights when and only when South Africa supplies diamonds.","choices":["(E ⊃ F) ∨ ~(S ≡ C)","(E ⊃ F) ∨ (S ⊃ C)","(E ⊃ F) ∨ (~C ⊃ S)","(E ⊃ F) ∨ (~S ≡ C)","(E ⊃ F) ∨ ~(C ≡ ~S)","(E ⊃ F) ∨ (C ⊃ ~S)","(F ⊃ E) ∨ (C ≡ S)","(F ⊃ E) ∨ (S ⊃ ~C","(E ⊃ F) ∨ (~C ≡ S)","~(E ⊃ F) ∨ (C ≡ S)"],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":10950,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The given formula is (~A ∨ ~B) ⊃ C. This can be translated as \"If either Marina doesn't read a Percy Jackson book or Izzy doesn't play Minecraft, then Emily stops working.\"\n\nLet's break down each option:\n\nA. If Marina doesn't read a Percy Jackson book and Izzy doesn't play Minecraft, then Emily will stop working.\n   - This is incorrect because it uses \"and\" instead of \"or.\"\n\nB. If Emily stops working, then either Marina doesn't read a Percy Jackson book, or Izzy doesn't play Minecraft.\n   - This is incorrect because it reverses the implication.\n\nC. Emily will stop working only if Marina doesn't read a Percy Jackson book and Izzy doesn't play Minecraft.\n   - This is incorrect because it uses \"only if\" and \"and\" instead of \"if\" and \"or.\"\n\nD. Emily stopping working is a sufficient condition for either Marina not reading a Percy Jackson book or Izzy not playing Minecraft.\n   - This is incorrect because it reverses the implication.\n\nE. Unless Marina reads a Percy Jackson book or Izzy plays Minecraft, Emily will stop working.\n   - This is incorrect because it uses \"unless,\" which implies the opposite condition.\n\nF. If Emily stops working, then neither Marina is reading a Percy Jackson book nor Izzy is playing Minecraft.\n   - This is incorrect because it reverses the implication.\n\nG. Either Marina not reading a Percy Jackson book or Izzy not playing Minecraft entails that Emily stops working.\n   - This is correct because it accurately reflects the given formula.\n\nH. If Marina reads a Percy Jackson book or Izzy plays Minecraft, then Emily won't stop working.\n   - This is incorrect because it negates the condition incorrectly.\n\nI. If neither Marina reads a Percy Jackson book nor Izzy plays Minecraft, then Emily stops working.\n   - This is correct because it accurately reflects the given formula in another way.\n\nBoth G and I are correct translations of the given formula into natural English sentences.\n\nAnswer: G","question":" Use the following key to translate the given formula of PL to natural, English sentences.\nA: Marina reads a Percy Jackson book.\nB: Izzy plays Minecraft.\nC: Emily stops working.\nD: Russell makes dinner.\nE: Ashleigh stops by.\n(~A ∨ ~B) ⊃ C","choices":["If Marina doesn't read a Percy Jackson book and Izzy doesn't play Minecraft, then Emily will stop working.","If Emily stops working, then either Marina doesn't read a Percy Jackson book, or Izzy doesn't play Minecraft.","Emily will stop working only if Marina doesn't read a Percy Jackson book and Izzy doesn't play Minecraft.","Emily stopping working is a sufficient condition for either Marina not reading a Percy Jackson book or Izzy not playing Minecraft.","Unless Marina reads a Percy Jackson book or Izzy plays Minecraft, Emily will stop working.","If Emily stops working, then neither Marina is reading a Percy Jackson book nor Izzy is playing Minecraft.","Either Marina not reading a Percy Jackson book or Izzy not playing Minecraft entails that Emily stops working.","If Marina reads a Percy Jackson book or Izzy plays Minecraft, then Emily won't stop working.","If neither Marina reads a Percy Jackson book nor Izzy plays Minecraft, then Emily stops working."],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10951,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. We need to translate \"Abdul and Cleopatra are Egyptian\" into predicate logic. Let \"Ea\" denote \"Abdul is Egyptian\" and \"Ec\" denote \"Cleopatra is Egyptian\". The conjunction (AND) of these two statements is represented as:\n\nAnswer: A","question":"Select the best translation into predicate logic: Abdul and Cleopatra are Egyptian.","choices":["Ea • Ec","Ea ∨ c","Ex • Ey","Ex • Ec","Ex ∨ Ey","Ea • c","Ae ∨ Ce","Ey • Ec","Ae • Ce","Ea ∨ Ec"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10952,"response":"Explanation: Let's construct the truth table for the argument step by step. We need to evaluate the premises and conclusion under all possible truth values of C and D.\n\n1. List all possible truth values for C and D.\n2. Evaluate ~C.\n3. Evaluate ~C ⊃ D.\n4. Evaluate D ⊃ C.\n5. Determine if the premises lead to the conclusion (C).\n\n| C | D | ~C | ~C ⊃ D | D ⊃ C | Conclusion (C) |\n|---|---|----|--------|-------|----------------|\n| T | T |  F |   T    |   T   |       T        |\n| T | F |  F |   T    |   T   |       T        |\n| F | T |  T |   T    |   F   |       F        |\n| F | F |  T |   F    |   T   |       F        |\n\nNow, let's analyze the rows where both premises are true and check if the conclusion is also true:\n\n- Row 1: Premises are true, conclusion is true.\n- Row 2: Premises are true, conclusion is true.\n- Row 3: Premises are false, so we don't consider this row.\n- Row 4: Premises are false, so we don't consider this row.\n\nSince there is no row where both premises are true and the conclusion is false, the argument is valid.\n\nAnswer: G","question":"Construct a complete truth table for the following argument. Then, using the truth table, determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\n~C ⊃ D\nD ⊃ C / C","choices":["Invalid. Counterexample when C is true and D is false","Invalid. Counterexample when D is false and C is true","Invalid. Counterexample when C and D are true","Invalid. Counterexample when C and D are both false","Invalid. Counterexample when C is false and D is true","Invalid. Counterexample when D is true and C is false","Valid","Valid. No counterexample exists","Invalid. Counterexample when D and C are both true"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10953,"response":"Explanation: Let's use indirect truth tables to check consistency. We need to find a valuation where all propositions are true simultaneously.\n\n1. \\((E \\supset F) \\supset G\\)\n2. \\((\\neg E \\lor F) \\equiv (H \\lor I)\\)\n3. \\(I \\supset (J \\supset \\neg H)\\)\n4. \\(\\neg G \\supset \\neg J\\)\n\nWe will check each option to see if it satisfies all the propositions:\n\n**Option A:**\n- \\(E = T, F = T, G = T, H = T, I = T, J = F\\)\n  - Proposition 1: \\((T \\supset T) = T\\), so \\(T \\supset T = T\\), hence \\(G = T\\). True.\n  - Proposition 2: \\((\\neg T \\lor T) = T\\), so \\(T \\equiv (T \\lor T) = T\\). True.\n  - Proposition 3: \\(T \\supset (F \\supset \\neg T) = F\\). False.\n  - Proposition 4: \\(\\neg T = F\\), so \\(F \\supset F = T\\). True.\n\nSince Proposition 3 is false, Option A is inconsistent.\n\n**Option B:**\n- \\(E = T, F = F, G = F, H = F, I = F, J = F\\)\n  - Proposition 1: \\(T \\supset F = F\\), so \\(F \\supset F = T\\). True.\n  - Proposition 2: \\( (\\neg T \\lor F) = F\\), so \\(F ≡ (F ∨ F) = F.\\) True.\n  - Proposition 3: \\(F ⊃ (F ⊃ ¬F)=T.\\) True.\n  - Proposition 4: ¬F=¬G=T ⊃ ¬J=T. True.\n\nSince all propositions are true, Option B is consistent.\n\n**Option C:**\n- \\(E = T, F = T, G = F, H = F, I = T, J = F\\)\n  - Proposition 1: \\(T ⊃ T=T,\\) so \\(T ⊃ ¬G=¬F.\\) False.\n  \nSince Proposition 1 is false, Option C is inconsistent.\n\n**Option D:** Inconsistent by definition.\n\n**Option E:**\n- \\(E=T,G=T,H=T,F=F,I=F,J=F.\\)\n   - Proposition 1: \\(T⊃¬G=¬F.\\) False.\n   \nSince Proposition 1 is false, Option E is inconsistent.\n\n**Option F:** \n- E=T,F=T,G=T,H=F,I=F,J=F\n   - Proposition 1:T⊃¬G=¬F.True.\n   - Proposition2:(¬E∨I)=¬H∨I=True.\n   - Proposition3:I⊃(J⊃¬H)=True\n   -Proposition4:G⊃J=True\n   \nSince all propositions are true in Option B and Option B is consistent.\n\nAnswer:B","question":" Use indirect truth tables to determine whether each set of propositions is consistent. If the set is consistent, choose an option with a consistent valuation. (There may be other consistent valuations.)\n(E ⊃ F) ⊃ G\n(~E ∨ F) ≡ (H ∨ I)\nI ⊃ (J ⊃ ~H)\n~G ⊃ ~J","choices":["Consistent. Consistent valuation when E, F, G, H, and I are true and J is false","Consistent. Consistent valuation when E is true and F, G, H, I, and J are false","Consistent. Consistent valuation when E, F, and I are true and G, H, and J are false","Inconsistent","Consistent. Consistent valuation when E, G, and H are true and F, I, and J are false","Consistent. Consistent valuation when E, F and G are true and H, I, and J are false","Consistent. Consistent valuation when E and I are true and F, G, H, and J are false","Consistent. Consistent valuation when E and H are true and F, G, I, and J are false"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10954,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"Doctors are helpful unless their patients are rude\" can be translated as \"Doctors are helpful or their patients are not rude.\" In logical terms, this translates to \"H ∨ ~R,\" where H stands for \"Doctors are helpful\" and R stands for \"Patients are rude.\"\n\nAnswer: J","question":" Which of the given formulas of PL is the best symbolization of the following sentence?\nDoctors are helpful unless their patients are rude.","choices":["H ∨ R","~H ∧ R","~H ↔ R","H • R","H ∧ ~R","~H ∨ R","H ↔ R","H → R","H ≡ R","H ∨ ~R"],"correct":"A","answer":"J","score":0}
{"number":10955,"response":"Explanation: Let's construct the truth table for the propositions \\(\\neg(J \\lor K) \\cdot L\\) and \\((L \\supset J) \\cdot K\\).\n\nFirst, let's break down each proposition:\n\n1. \\(\\neg(J \\lor K) \\cdot L\\):\n   - \\(J \\lor K\\): True if either \\(J\\) or \\(K\\) is true.\n   - \\(\\neg(J \\lor K)\\): True if both \\(J\\) and \\(K\\) are false.\n   - \\(\\neg(J \\lor K) \\cdot L\\): True if both \\(\\neg(J \\lor K)\\) is true and \\(L\\) is true.\n\n2. \\((L \\supset J) \\cdot K\\):\n   - \\(L \\supset J\\): True if either \\(L\\) is false or \\(J\\) is true (i.e., if \\(L\\) then \\(J\\)).\n   - \\((L \\supset J) \\cdot K\\): True if both \\(L \\supset J\\) is true and \\(K\\) is true.\n\nNow, let's construct the truth table:\n\n| J | K | L | J ∨ K | ¬(J ∨ K) | ¬(J ∨ K) · L | L ⊃ J | (L ⊃ J) · K |\n|---|---|---|-------|----------|--------------|--------|-------------|\n| T | T | T |   T   |    F     |      F       |    T   |      T      |\n| T | T | F |   T   |    F     |      F       |    T   |      T      |\n| T | F | T |   T   |    F     |      F       |    T   |      F      |\n| T | F | F |   T   |    F     |      F       |    T   |      F      |\n| F | T | T |   T   |    F     |      F       |    F   |      F      |\n| F | T | F |   T   |    F     |      F       |    T   |      T      |\n| F | F | T |   F   |    T     |_T_|_T_|_F_|_F_|_F_|_T_|_F_|_F_|_T_|_F_|_F_|_F_|_F_|_T_|_T_|_T_|_T_|_T_|_T_\n\nFrom the truth table, we can see that there are no rows where both propositions are true simultaneously. Therefore, the statements are inconsistent.\n\nAnswer: D","question":" Construct a complete truth table for the following pairs of propositions. Then, using the truth tables, determine whether the statements are logically equivalent or contradictory. If neither, determine whether they are consistent or inconsistent. Justify your answers.\n~(J ∨ K) · L and (L ⊃ J) · K","choices":["Logically equivalent and inconsistent","Neither logically equivalent nor contradictory, but consistent","Logically equivalent","Inconsistent","Contradictory","Both contradictory and inconsistent","Neither contradictory nor consistent, but logically equivalent","Both logically equivalent and contradictory","Contradictory and consistent"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10956,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to scholarly articles on bioethics for help. Lee and George argue that the right to life belongs to a human being at all times that he or she exists, regardless of developmental stage.\nAnswer: B","question":" In response to the argument that embryos are not persons because they lack certain rights that all persons have (such as the right to life), Lee and George argue that","choices":["the right to life belongs to all living creatures, human or not.","the right to life belongs to a human being at all times that he or she exists.","only beings capable of experiencing pain should be given the right to life.","the right to life is not a relevant concept when discussing embryos.","the right to life applies only to beings capable of thought and self-awareness.","embryos have potential personhood and therefore should be given the right to life.","not all persons have the right to life-for example, a murderer has given up his or her right to life through his or her actions","all of the above","the right to life does not apply to embryos because they are not independent beings.","the right to life is granted at birth and not before."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10957,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous thought experiment involving the violinist is used to discuss the permissibility of abortion. In a modified version where the violinist only needs your kidneys for one hour, Thomson argues that even though it would be morally good (or you ought) to let the violinist use your kidneys for that hour, this does not imply that the violinist has a right to use your kidneys.\n\nAnswer: E","question":" Thomson discusses a different version of the violinist case wherein the violinist only needs to use your kidneys for one hour to survive. Her own view about this case is that","choices":["because the violinist's life is in danger, you have an absolute moral obligation to let them use your kidneys, regardless of the duration.","you have no obligation to let the violinist use your kidneys, but if you choose to do so, the violinist has the right to use them for that hour.","you have the right to disconnect the violinist at any point, regardless of the consequences for the violinist.","because you ought to let the violinist use your kidneys for that hour, we should conclude that he or she has a right to use your kidneys for that hour.","even though you ought to let the violinist use your kidneys for that hour, we should not conclude that he or she has a right to use your kidneys for that hour.","you have no obligation to let the violinist use your kidneys for that hour.","you have an obligation to let the violinist use your kidneys for that hour, but the violinist does not have a right to use your kidneys.","the violinist has an obligation to disconnect him- or herself before that hour is over.","you have an obligation to let the violinist use your kidneys for that hour, and the violinist also has a right to use your kidneys."],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":10958,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics for help. Philippa Foot's Rescue I and Rescue II cases are used to illustrate the moral distinction between actively causing harm and allowing harm to occur. They contrast originating a harmful sequence with allowing a harmful sequence to continue.\nAnswer: A","question":" Foot's Rescue I and Rescue II cases are intended to","choices":["contrast originating a harmful sequence with allowing a harmful sequence to continue.","all of the above","demonstrate the difference between passive and active harm.","argue that good intentions can result in harmful sequences.","show that harmful sequences can be stopped by good intentions.","contrast intentional harm with accidental harm.","argue that all harmful sequences are the result of evil intentions.","highlight the importance of intentions in determining the morality of an action.","show that evil intentions always involve the origination of harmful sequences.","contrast evil intentions with good intentions."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10959,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the best action is the one that maximizes utility, generally defined as that which produces the greatest well-being of the greatest number of people. Therefore, a utilitarian who recognizes rights would justify them based on their contribution to overall welfare.\nAnswer: J","question":" A utilitarian who recognizes rights will attempt to explain rights on the basis of utility by claiming that","choices":["there are only moral rights; there is no utility.","all of the above","there are no moral rights; there is only utility.","a moral right is a kind of claim that is justified by the fact that its recognition will diminish overall welfare.","a moral right is a kind of claim that is justified by the fact that its recognition will not contribute to the maximization of overall welfare.","a moral right is a kind of claim that is justified by the fact that its recognition will not diminish overall welfare.","a moral right is a kind of claim that is justified by the fact that its recognition will lead to the maximization of individual welfare.","a moral right is a kind of claim that is justified by the fact that its recognition will lead to the minimization of overall welfare.","a moral right is a kind of claim that is justified by the fact that its recognition will have no impact on overall welfare.","a moral right is a kind of claim that is justified by the fact that its recognition will contribute to the maximization of overall welfare."],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":10961,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Arthur's views on ethics emphasize the importance of justice, fairness, and respect for other persons as fundamental values. Therefore, the correct answer is \"all of the above.\"\nAnswer: D","question":" Which of the following is a value that Arthur believes is more fundamental than rights and desert?","choices":["justice","fairness","respect for other persons","all of the above"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10962,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Peter Carruthers is known for his arguments regarding animal minds and consciousness. He does not deny that animals can suffer or have conscious experiences. However, he argues that animals lack the capacity for rational agency, which involves higher-order thinking and reasoning.\n\nAnswer: C","question":" Which of the following capacities does Carruther's assume that animals lack?","choices":["the capacity for suffering","the capacity for practical reasoning","the capacity for rational agency","the capacity for conscious experience"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10963,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to authoritative sources on bioethics for help. Pence's objections to arguments against SCNT (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer) typically focus on countering misconceptions about the quality of life, genetic determinism, societal expectations, and potential benefits. The option that does not align with Pence's typical objections is one that suggests a negative stance towards SCNT without providing a counter-argument.\n\nAnswer: J","question":" Which of the following is not an objection Pence gives to the argument that SCNT is not best for the child?","choices":["The potential for genetic abnormalities is not a valid argument against SCNT.","The expectations people will place on SCNT individuals could be no worse than normal expectations of children created sexually.","The argument falsely assumes that SCNT individuals would have a lesser quality of life.","The argument assumes genetic determinism or genetic reductionism.","The argument fails to take into account the rights and autonomy of the parents.","The argument neglects the emotional and psychological well-being of the child.","People's prejudicial attitudes are likely to change.","SCNT could potentially lead to advancements in medical research and treatment.","The argument ignores the potential benefits of SCNT to society.","If people's prejudicial attitudes do not change, then we should not allow SCNT."],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":10964,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on political philosophy for help. Joseph Carens is known for his defense of egalitarian cosmopolitanism, which argues for equal moral consideration of all individuals regardless of national boundaries.\nAnswer: H","question":" Carens defends a form of","choices":["Kantian distributionism.","libertarian cosmopolitanism.","Rawlsian justice.","Communitarianism.","Anarchist cosmopolitanism.","Social contract theory.","Libertarian distributionism.","egalitarian cosmopolitanism.","anticosmopolitanism.","Utilitarianism."],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":10965,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy and ethics for help. Ernest van den Haag, a prominent advocate of the death penalty, argued that we cannot definitively know whether the murderer suffers more than the victim. This is a key point in his discussions about the morality and effectiveness of capital punishment.\nAnswer: H","question":" Van den Haag thinks that we can't know whether a murderer who receives the death penalty","choices":["is morally degraded.","is remorseful for his actions.","is a threat to society.","is justly punished.","is mentally stable.","is a repeat offender.","is punished in a humane manner.","suffers more than the victim.","is punished excessively.","is capable of rehabilitation."],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":10966,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ancient festivals for help. The ten-day New Year festival celebrated in Babylonian culture is known as Akitu.\nAnswer: G","question":" What is the name of the ten day New Year festival that celebrated Babylon's culture?","choices":["Bast","Nehebkau","Wag and Thoth","Tsagaan Sar","Songkran","Nowruz","Akitu","Nyepi","Enkutatash","Gudi Padwa"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10967,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Buddhism for help. Soto Zen is known for promoting \"gradual enlightenment\" through the practice of zazen (sitting meditation), as opposed to Rinzai Zen, which emphasizes sudden enlightenment through koans.\nAnswer: A","question":" Which tradition is known to promote \"gradual enlightenment\"?","choices":["Soto Zen","Kegon Buddhism","Rinzai Zen","Nichiren","Confucianism","Jodo Shinshu","Bushido","Pure Land Buddhism","Shinto","Taoism"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10968,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Jainism for help. According to Jain tradition, there have been 24 Tirthankaras (Jinas) who have appeared during the current age.\nAnswer: C","question":"How many Jinas have appeared during our age?","choices":["13","18","24","60","5","35","42","50","12","7"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10969,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on religious titles for help. The title \"Dalai Lama\" combines the Mongolic word \"Dalai,\" meaning \"ocean,\" and the Tibetan word \"Lama,\" meaning \"guru\" or \"teacher.\" Therefore, it translates to \"Ocean of Wisdom.\"\nAnswer: H","question":"The title Dalai Lama means which of the following?","choices":["Love of the Ocean","Lover of Wisdom","Wisdom of the Ocean","Ocean of Stillness","Stillness of Wisdom","Ocean of Love","Wisdom of Love","Ocean of Wisdom","Stillness of Love","Lover of the Ocean"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":10970,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Jainism for help. \"Mahavira\" is a title given to Vardhamana, the 24th Tirthankara in Jainism, and it means \"Great Hero.\"\nAnswer: B","question":"What does \"Mahavira\" mean?","choices":["\"Peaceful Warrior\"","\"Great Hero\"","\"The Ascetic\"","\"The Lesser One\"","\"Mendicant\"","\"Great Sage\"","\"The Enlightened One\"","\"Supreme Being\"","\"The Victorious One\"","\"Master\""],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10971,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Buddhism for help. The Tripitaka, also known as the Pali Canon, is the traditional term for Buddhist scriptures. The word \"Tripitaka\" literally means \"Three Baskets,\" referring to the three divisions of the canon: the Vinaya Pitaka (discipline basket), the Sutta Pitaka (discourse basket), and the Abhidhamma Pitaka (higher knowledge basket).\nAnswer: C","question":" What does the Tripitaka mean?","choices":["Three sutras","Three buddhas","Three baskets","Three teachings","Three bodhisattvas","Three virtues","Three gems","Three paths","Three dhammas","Three monks"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10972,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Hindu festivals for help. The festival that involves decorating the house with lights, setting off firecrackers, and wearing new clothes is Deepavali (also known as Diwali). It is one of the most widely celebrated Hindu festivals and is known as the Festival of Lights.\n\nAnswer: G","question":" Which Hindu festival involves decorating the house with lights, setting off firecrackers and wearing new clothes?","choices":["Pongal","Ganesh Chaturthi","Janmashtami","Holi","Karva Chauth","Makar Sankranti","Deepavali","Navaratri","Raksha Bandhan"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10973,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Buddhist thinkers for help. Thich Nhat Hanh is a Vietnamese Buddhist monk known for his teachings on mindfulness, peace, and self-sacrifice. His writings and teachings often emphasize the importance of self-sacrifice in the context of compassion and interbeing.\nAnswer: G","question":" Self-sacrifice is an important theme for which Buddhist thinker?","choices":["Mahasi Sayadaw","Bhikkhu Bodhi","Zen Master Seung Sahn","Shaku Soyen","Pema Chödrön","Daisetsu T. Suzuki","Thich Nhat Hanh","Walpola Rahula","The Dalai Lama","Ajahn Chah"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10974,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Islam for help. The Fatihah is recited in each unit (rak'ah) of the five daily prayers (salah). The five daily prayers consist of a total of 17 rak'ahs: Fajr (2), Dhuhr (4), Asr (4), Maghrib (3), and Isha (4). Therefore, the Fatihah is recited at least 17 times a day.\nAnswer: C","question":" How many times a day is the Fatihah recited?","choices":["Exactly 17","At least 13","At least 17","At least 20","Exactly 24","At least 24","Exactly 13","Exactly 10","At least 10","Exactly 20"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10975,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Hindu traditions for help. In Hindu traditions, women are often associated with \"auspiciousness,\" particularly in the context of their roles in rituals and family life.\nAnswer: H","question":"Which term is usually associated with women in Hindu traditions?","choices":["Fearful","Sinful","Polluted","Submissive","Ideal","Strong","Impure","Auspiciousness","Kind","Inferior"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":10976,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy of arguing that what is true of an entire object is also true of each part of that object is known as the fallacy of division.\nAnswer: D","question":"Arguing that what is true of an entire object is also true of each part of that object is the fallacy of","choices":["appeal to ignorance","straw man","bandwagon","division","false cause","slippery slope","false criteria","hasty generalization","ad hominem","ad crumenam"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10978,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy that occurs when someone attributes the cause of an event to a simple cause when the cause is actually more complicated is known as the \"complex cause\" fallacy.\nAnswer: B","question":"Which of the following fallacies happens when someone attributes the cause of an event to a simple cause when the cause is actually more complicated?","choices":["slippery slope","complex cause","red herring","ad hominem","hasty generalization","appeal to authority","post hoc","false dichotomy","division","appeal to ignorance"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10979,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Aristotle's ethics for help. In Aristotle's terminology, incontinence (or akrasia) refers to a state where one knows that one's actions are wrong but does them anyway.\nAnswer: E","question":"In Aristotle’s terminology, incontinence is when:","choices":["one knows that one's feelings are inappropriate, but acts on them anyway.","one knows that one’s feelings are inappropriate, and does not act on them.","one acts on one's feelings, regardless of their appropriateness.","one does not know that one’s actions are wrong.","one knows that one’s actions are wrong, but does them anyway.","one does not act despite knowing that one's actions are right.","one does the right action, but for the wrong reason.","one does not know that one's actions are right.","one does the right action, but does not understand why it's right."],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":10980,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on art theory for help. A formal characteristic of art refers to the elements and principles of design that are intrinsic to the artwork itself, rather than external factors like social meaning or monetary value. Among the options provided, coherence (the logical arrangement and harmony of elements within the artwork) is a fundamental formal characteristic.\nAnswer: H","question":"An important formal characteristic of art is_____.","choices":["the artist's nationality","its power to evoke strong emotions","social meaning","the use of geometric shapes","the size of the artwork","faithful representation","its ability to depict historical events accurately","coherence","its monetary value","the use of vibrant colors"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":10981,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the provided context and Susan Wolf's arguments in her paper \"Moral Saints.\" According to Wolf, a moral saint is someone whose life is dominated by a commitment to improving the welfare of others or society as a whole. This commitment often crowds out nonmoral interests and personal characteristics that contribute to a well-rounded character. Specifically, Wolf mentions that certain qualities, such as a sarcastic wit, require an attitude that goes against the moral grain.\n\nAnswer: I","question":"According to Wolf, a moral saint:","choices":["cannot have an interest in sports.","cannot express any form of anger.","cannot have an interest in gourmet cooking.","cannot enjoy a good joke.","all of the above.","cannot be a charitable person.","cannot read Victorian novels.","cannot have an affinity for nature.","cannot have a sarcastic wit.","cannot appreciate fine art."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":10982,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. Logical behaviorism posits that mental states are nothing more than descriptions of behavior or dispositions to behave in certain ways. This view is at odds with the commonsense intuition that mental states cause behavior, as it reduces mental states to behavioral descriptions rather than recognizing them as causes.\n\nAnswer: A","question":"Logical behaviorism is at odds with our commonsense intuition that mental states _____.","choices":["cause behavior","are the same as behavioral states","exist","can be directly observed","are always visible","never interact with each other","are physical states","can be measured quantitatively","never cause behavior","do not exist"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10983,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Elizabeth Anscombe, in her critique of modern moral philosophy, specifically criticizes Kant's idea of the \"legislating for oneself\" as part of his moral theory. She finds it problematic and absurd because it implies that individuals can autonomously legislate moral laws for themselves without reference to any external or divine authority.\n\nAnswer: D","question":"Anscombe criticizes as absurd Kant’s idea of:","choices":["the postulate of immortality.","the autonomous will.","the categorical imperative.","legislating for oneself.","the unity of consciousness.","the transcendental unity of apperception.","the phenomenal self.","the thing in itself.","the noumenal self.","the kingdom of ends."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":10984,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"If Beth rides her bike, she gets to work earlier\" can be translated into propositional logic using the implication operator (⊃). Let \"B\" denote \"Beth rides her bike\" and \"W\" denote \"she gets to work earlier.\" The correct symbolization of the sentence is \"B ⊃ W.\"\n\nAnswer: B","question":" Which of the given formulas of PL is the best symbolization of the following sentence?\nIf Beth rides her bike, she gets to work earlier.","choices":["W ∨ B","B ⊃ W","B ∨ W","¬B ⊃ W","W ⊃ B","¬W ⊃ B","B ≡ ¬W","B ≡ W","B & W","Both A and B"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10985,"response":"Explanation: Let's use indirect truth tables to determine the consistency of the set of propositions. We need to find at least one valuation where all propositions are true simultaneously.\n\n1. \\( A \\supset (\\neg B \\lor C) \\)\n2. \\( C \\supset D \\)\n3. \\( A \\lor (B \\cdot \\neg D) \\)\n4. \\( A \\equiv (B \\supset D) \\)\n\nLet's test some valuations:\n\n**Valuation: A = true, B = false, C = false, D = true**\n\n1. \\( A \\supset (\\neg B \\lor C) \\)\n   - True implies (True or False) -> True\n   - This is true.\n\n2. \\( C \\supset D \\)\n   - False implies True -> True\n   - This is true.\n\n3. \\( A \\lor (B \\cdot \\neg D) \\)\n   - True or (False and False) -> True\n   - This is true.\n\n4. \\( A \\equiv (B \\supset D) \\)\n   - True equivalent to (False implies True) -> True\n   - This is true.\n\nSince all propositions are true under this valuation, the set is consistent.\n\nAnswer: C","question":" Use indirect truth tables to determine whether each set of propositions is consistent. If the set is consistent, choose an option with a consistent valuation. (There may be other consistent valuations.)\nA ⊃ (~B ∨ C)\nC ⊃ D\nA ∨ (B · ~D)\nA ≡ (B ⊃ D)","choices":["Inconsistent. Inconsistent valuation when B and D are true and A and C are false","Consistent. Consistent valuation when A, B, C, and D are all false","Consistent. Consistent valuation when A and D are true and B and C are false","Inconsistent. Inconsistent valuation when A, B, C, and D are all true","Consistent. Consistent valuation when B, C, and D are true and A is false","Consistent. Consistent valuation when C and D are true and A and B are false","Consistent. Consistent valuation when A, B, and D are true and C is false","Consistent. Consistent valuation when A, B and C are true and D is false","Inconsistent. Inconsistent valuation when A, C and D are true and B is false","Inconsistent"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10986,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The predicate \"Txy\" means \"x is taller than y\". To translate \"Leo is taller than Cathy\" into predicate logic, we need to identify Leo as \"l\" and Cathy as \"c\". Therefore, the correct translation is \"Tlc\".\nAnswer: G","question":"Select the best translation into predicate logic. Leo is taller than Cathy. (c: Cathy; l: Leo; Txy: x is taller than y)","choices":["TlcL","cTL","lTc","Tll","cTl","TclC","Tlc","Tcl","Tcc","lCT"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10987,"response":"Explanation: Let's break down the sentence into its logical components. We need to symbolize the following conditions:\n\n1. A person is considered to have lived with you for all of the present year (L).\n2. If the person was born (B) or died (D) in the present year.\n3. Your home was this person's home for the entire time this person was alive (H).\n\nThe sentence can be rephrased as: \"If a person was born or died in the present year and your home was their home for the entire time they were alive, then they are considered to have lived with you for all of the present year.\"\n\nThis translates to: \\((B \\lor D) \\land H \\rightarrow L\\).\n\nAmong the given options, option F matches this structure:\nF. \\([(B \\lor D) \\land H] \\rightarrow L\\)\n\nAnswer: F","question":" Which of the given formulas of PL is the best symbolization of the following sentence?\nA person is considered to have lived with you for all of the present year if the person was born or died in the present year and your home was this person's home for the entire time this person was alive.","choices":["H ⊃ [(B ∨ D) • L]","(L ∨ B) • (D ⊃ H)","[L ⊃ (B ∨ D)] • H","(B ∨ D) ⊃ (H • L)","L ⊃ (B ∨ D • H)","[(B ∨ D) • H] ⊃ L","L ⊃ [(B ∨ D) • H]","L ⊃ [(H • B) ∨ D]","[(B ∨ D) ∨ H] ⊃ L","(B ∨ D • H) ⊃ L"],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":10988,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. In a conditional proposition of the form \"If P, then Q,\" the antecedent is the part that follows \"if\" (P). Here, the antecedent is \"When the university raises tuition.\"\nAnswer: B","question":"Identify the antecedent of the following conditional proposition: When the university raises tuition, then either the governor approves of it or the board of trustees doesn't prevent it.","choices":["The board of trustees prevents it.","The university raises tuition.","The board of trustees approves it.","The governor and the board of trustees don't prevent it.","The governor approves of it.","The board of trustees doesn't prevent it.","The governor and the board of trustees prevent it.","The governor disapproves of it.","The university doesn't raise tuition.","The university lowers tuition."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":10989,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. We need to use indirect truth tables to determine the validity of the argument. \n\n1. The argument is:\n   - \\( H \\equiv (I \\cdot \\neg J) \\)\n   - \\( K \\equiv \\neg H \\)\n   - \\( \\neg (K \\supset J) \\)\n   - Conclusion: \\( I \\equiv J \\)\n\n2. To test for validity, assume the conclusion is false and see if it leads to a contradiction with the premises.\n\n3. For \\( I \\equiv J \\) to be false, \\( I \\) and \\( J \\) must have different truth values. Let's consider both cases:\n\n   Case 1: \\( I = T \\), \\( J = F \\)\n   Case 2: \\( I = F \\), \\( J = T \\)\n\n4. Evaluate each case with the premises:\n\n### Case 1: \\( I = T, J = F \\)\n\n- From \\( H \\equiv (I \\cdot \\neg J) \\):\n  - \\( H = T \\equiv (T \\cdot T) = T\\)\n  - So, \\( H = T\\)\n\n- From \\( K \\equiv \\neg H\\):\n  - \\( K = T\\)\n\n- From \\( \\neg (K \\supset J)\\):\n  - \\( K = T, J = F\\)\n  - So, \\( K \\supset J = F\\), and thus, \\( K = T\\), which is consistent.\n\n### Case 2: \\( I = F, J = T\\)\n\n- From \\( H \\equiv (I \\cdot \\neg J) \\):\n  - \\( H = F\\)\n\n- From \\( K \\equiv \\neg H\\):\n  - \\( K = T\\)\n\n- From \\( neg (K superset J)\\):\n  - If K=T and J=T, then K superset J=T\n  - Negating this gives us False\n\nSo, in both cases we do not find contradictions with the premises.\n\nAnswer: A","question":"Use indirect truth tables to determine whether the following argument is valid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\nH ≡ (I · ~J)\nK ≡ ~H\n~(K ⊃ J) / I ≡ J","choices":["Valid","Invalid. Counterexample when I, J, and K are true and H is false","Invalid. Counterexample when K is true and I, H, and J are false","Invalid. Counterexample when H, I, and J are true and K is false","Invalid. Counterexample when K and J are true and I and H are false","Invalid. Counterexample when H and J are true and I and K are false","Invalid. Counterexample when I and J are true and H and K are false","Invalid. Counterexample when I and H are true and J and K are false","Invalid. Counterexample when J is true and I, H, and K are false","Invalid. Counterexample when I, H, and K are true and J is false"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":10990,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"Either England's importing beef is a sufficient condition for France's subsidizing agriculture or China's promoting human rights is a necessary condition for South Africa's supplying diamonds\" can be broken down as follows:\n\n1. \"England's importing beef is a sufficient condition for France's subsidizing agriculture\" translates to \\( E \\supset F \\).\n2. \"China's promoting human rights is a necessary condition for South Africa's supplying diamonds\" translates to \\( S \\supset C \\).\n\nThe logical disjunction (either/or) of these two conditions is represented by the formula:\n\\[ (E \\supset F) \\lor (S \\supset C) \\]\n\nTherefore, the correct answer is:\nAnswer: G","question":" Which of the given formulas of PL is the best symbolization of the following sentence?\nEither England's importing beef is a sufficient condition for France's subsidizing agriculture or China's promoting human rights is a necessary condition for South Africa's supplying diamonds.","choices":["(F ⊃ E) ∨ (S ⊃ C)","(F ⊃ E) ∨ (C ⊃ S)","(F ⊃ C) ∨ (E ⊃ S)","(S ⊃ E) ∨ (F ⊃ C)","(E ⊃ F) ∨ (C ⊃ S)","(E ⊃ S) ∨ (C ⊃ F)","(E ⊃ F) ∨ (S ⊃ C)","(C ⊃ F) ∨ (S ⊃ E)","(S ⊃ F) ∨ (E ⊃ C)","(C ⊃ S) ∨ (F ⊃ E)"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":10991,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on predicate logic for help. The sentence \"Some CEO is wealthier than everyone\" can be broken down into two parts:\n1. There exists some CEO (Cx).\n2. This CEO is wealthier than every person (∀y)(Py ⊃ Wxy).\n\nCombining these, we get: (∃x)[Cx • (∀y)(Py ⊃ Wxy)].\n\nAnswer: C","question":" Select the best translation into predicate logic. Some CEO is wealthier than everyone. (Cx: x is a CEO; Px: x is a person; Wxy: x is wealthier than y)","choices":["(∀x)[Px • (∃y)(Cy • Wxy)]","(∃x)[Px • (∀y)(Cy • Wxy)]","(∃x)[Cx • (∀y)(Py ⊃ Wxy)]","(∀x)[Cx • (∃y)(Py ⊃ Wxy)]","(∃x)[Px ⊃ (∀y)(Cy ⊃ Wxy)]","(∃x)[Cx ⊃ (∀y)(Py • Wxy)]","(∃x)[Cx ⊃ (∀y)(Py ⊃ Wxy)]","(∀x)[Cx ⊃ (∃y)(Py ⊃ Wxy)]","(∀x)[Px ⊃ (∃y)(Cy ⊃ Wxy)]","(∃x)[Cx • (∀y)(Py • Wxy)]"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10992,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on feminist philosophy for help. According to Robin West's account, women who engage in undesired sex due to actual or felt dependence on their partner may experience injury to their sense of autonomy because they feel obliged to fulfill their partner's sexual desires. This obligation can arise from a sense of duty or societal expectations, leading to a compromised sense of autonomy.\n\nAnswer: H","question":" On West's account, women who engage in undesired sex because of actual or felt dependence on their partner may experience injury to their sense of autonomy because","choices":["they are dominated by their partners insofar as they are not free to do as they please.","they are actually coerced into having sex.","they are financially dependent on their partners.","they fear the consequences of refusing their partner.","they have not established boundaries in their relationship.","none of the above.","their partner uses manipulation tactics to coerce them into sex.","they feel obliged to fulfill their partner's sexual desires.","they feel a sense of obligation due to societal pressures.","they have neglected to take whatever steps would lead to their self-sustenance."],"correct":"J","answer":"H","score":0}
{"number":10993,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics and war for help. The view that moral considerations do not apply to war is typically known as \"war realism\" or simply \"realism\" in the context of international relations and ethics.\nAnswer: J","question":" The view that moral considerations do not apply to war is known as","choices":["moral absolutism.","antiwar pacifism.","just war theory.","war pragmatism.","moral nihilism.","jus ad bellum.","moral relativism.","utilitarianism.","consequentialism.","war realism."],"correct":"E","answer":"J","score":0}
{"number":10994,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to academic discussions on ethics and philosophy for help. Susan Little argues that we should accept a prerogative on the part of mothers to end a pregnancy until the fetus is a person because we should accept a prerogative to decline radical changes to one's practical identity.\nAnswer: E","question":" Little argues that we should accept a prerogative on the part of mothers to end a pregnancy until the fetus is a person because","choices":["abortion is presumptively morally wrong but can become permissible in certain extreme cases.","the fetus is not a person until it is capable of independent life.","the decision ultimately rests with the mother.","the moral status of the fetus is irrelevant.","we should accept a prerogative to decline radical changes to one's practical identity.","it is ethically permissible to abort a fetus before it becomes a person.","a woman has a right to control her own body.","there is no clear answer about the moral status of abortion.","abortion is absolutely morally wrong.","there is a legal right to abortion."],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":10995,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to recent studies and articles on drug use patterns for help. Shapiro's claim, supported by longitudinal studies, suggests that the use of illegal drugs is usually a temporary phase in adolescence.\nAnswer: A","question":" Shapiro claims that surveys have been confirmed by longitudinal studies that indicate that","choices":["the use of illegal drugs is usually a temporary phase in adolescence.","most individuals experiment with illegal drugs but do not continue use.","excessive use of legal drugs is the norm.","an individual's illegal drug use inevitably diminishes over time.","those who begin using illegal drugs typically stop before addiction sets in.","longitudinal studies have shown no consistent patterns in illegal drug use.","illegal drug users typically transition to legal substances over time.","moderate and/or controlled use of illegal drugs is the norm.","those who begin using illegal drugs typically do not stop until they become addicted.","excessive use of illegal drugs is the norm."],"correct":"H","answer":"A","score":0}
{"number":10996,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. Peter Singer, a well-known philosopher, has argued that affluent nations harm poorer nations primarily through their contributions to global warming. This is because the environmental impact of industrialized countries disproportionately affects developing nations, which are often less equipped to handle the consequences.\n\nAnswer: F","question":" Singer argues that developing nations are harming poor nations by","choices":["exploiting their natural resources without adequate compensation.","indoctrinating them with Western values.","forcing them to adopt Western educational systems.","imposing their political systems on them.","promoting consumerism and materialistic values.","causing global warming.","ignoring important aspects of their culture.","refusing to help with debt relief.","imposing trade restrictions and tariffs.","handing out too much foreign aid, which increases need."],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":10998,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on environmental ethics for help. Baxter's \"very general way\" of stating what we should strive for environmentally is often interpreted as anthropocentric, focusing on human satisfaction and the ability to measure it. This aligns with option (C), which states that we can measure in some way the incremental units of human satisfaction.\nAnswer: C","question":" Baxter claims that his \"very general way\" of stating what we should strive for environmentally assumes that","choices":["we have unlimited resources to address environmental issues.","human satisfaction is the only measure of environmental success.","we can measure in some way the incremental units of human satisfaction.","we can precisely predict the environmental impact of our actions.","the environment is solely a human construct.","all living organisms have equal value.","all of the above","we have a god-like control over the environment.","nonhuman animals have no value whatsoever.","environmental preservation is the sole responsibility of governments."],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":10999,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on political philosophy for help. Michael Walzer, a prominent political theorist, emphasizes the importance of maintaining moral integrity and not repeating the wrongs of terrorism when responding to it.\nAnswer: J","question":" In responding to terrorism, says Walzer, it is particularly important that","choices":["we isolate the terrorists and cut off their resources.","we focus on increasing security measures rather than retaliation.","we use the same tactics as terrorists to understand their methods.","we attack the lower-ranking terrorists first.","we take immediate military action against the terrorists.","we make an effort to convince the terrorists that they are acting wrongly.","we publicly condemn the terrorists' actions.","we avoid harming terrorists to the same extent that we would avoid harming innocent civilians.","we negotiate with the terrorists to reach a peaceful resolution.","we do not repeat the wrongs of terrorism in the process."],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":11000,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on bioethics for help. Lee and George argue that killing an embryo that would develop into a person is equivalent to killing that person.\nAnswer: D","question":" In response to the argument that embryos are not persons because they do not exercise higher mental capacities, Lee and George argue that","choices":["it doesn't make sense to say that a person exercises higher mental capacities.","mental capacities should not be a factor in determining personhood.","the ability to exercise higher mental capacities could be considered a potential, not an actuality.","to have killed a human embryos that developed into you would have been the same thing as killing you.","embryos actually do exercise higher mental capacities.","higher mental capacities are not the only defining characteristics of a person.","they dispute the notion that higher mental capacities are a requirement for personhood.","the argument is irrelevant as they believe life begins at conception.","embryos are potential persons and therefore should have the same rights.","the argument is sound, but its validity fails due to a common logical fallacy."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11001,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy and ethics for help. J. David Velleman, a philosopher known for his work in ethics, argues that the decision regarding euthanasia should ultimately rest with the patient, as it involves their own life and suffering. This aligns with the principle of respecting patient autonomy.\n\nAnswer: J","question":" According to Velleman, who, if anyone, should decide whether a patient receives euthanasia?","choices":["a court of law","the hospital administration","no one, it should not be allowed under any circumstance","the patient's caregiver","a medical ethics committee","the patient's family","the patient's physician","the patient's legal representative","legislators","the patient"],"correct":"D","answer":"J","score":0}
{"number":11002,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on bioethics for help. Peter Singer, a prominent bioethicist, has discussed various potential social problems that could arise from genetic engineering and a \"genetic supermarket.\" Among the options provided, Singer considers the loss of human diversity to be the least serious compared to other issues like inequality of opportunity or increased disparity between rich and poor.\n\nAnswer: A","question":" Of the following social problems that could result from a genetic supermarket, which does Singer think is the least serious?","choices":["loss of human diversity","the effects of engineering children to have positional goods","loss of equality of opportunity","increased disparity between the rich and the poor"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11003,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics for help. The question is about the moral relevance of the distinction between killing and letting die. To pose this question effectively, we need a scenario where an active action (killing) is compared to a passive inaction (letting die). Among the options, sending poisoned food (B) is a direct action that results in death and can be compared to allowing people to starve.\n\nAnswer: B","question":" The question of whether the killing/letting die distinction is morally relevant can be posed by asking whether we are equally to blame for allowing people in Third World countries to starve as we would be for","choices":["killing them by blocking access to clean water.","killing them by sending poisoned food.","refusing to share agricultural technology with them.","withholding medicine that they need to survive.","exploiting their resources without fair compensation.","denying them the opportunity to trade fairly in global markets.","depriving them of knowledge they need to produce food.","imposing economic sanctions that lead to food shortages.","depriving them of their land for farming.","refusing to give them the money they need to purchase food."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11004,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on rights and duties for help. A duty that corresponds to a right to goods and services involves providing or returning something tangible or a specific service. \n\n- (A) John's duty to return the car he borrowed from Mary is an example of a duty corresponding to a right to goods.\n- (B) Allowing someone to pursue their goals is more about respecting their autonomy.\n- (C) Not harming someone is a negative duty, not directly related to goods or services.\n- (D) Not committing suicide is a personal duty, not related to providing goods or services.\n\nAnswer: A","question":" Which of the following is an example of a duty that corresponds to a right to goods and service?","choices":["John's duty to return to Mary that car that he borrowed from her","John's duty to allow Mary to pursue goals that she values","John's duty to not harm Mary","John's duty to not commit suicide"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11005,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on constitutional rights for help. Speech codes are regulations that restrict or limit speech, and critics argue that such codes violate the principle of freedom of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.\nAnswer: A","question":" Critics of speech codes adopted in the 1980s and early 1990s argued that these codes violated which of the following principles?","choices":["freedom of speech","freedom of the press","right to bear arms","right to privacy"],"correct":"B","answer":"A","score":0}
{"number":11006,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Japanese culture for help. The Japanese art of flower arranging is known as Ikebana.\nAnswer: B","question":"Which of the following terms denote the Japanese art of flower arranging?","choices":["Origami","Ikebana","Kintsugi","Bonsai","Shodo","Kami","Sumi-e","Zazen","Tariki"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11007,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on the Dalai Lama for help. The current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, was born on July 6, 1935.\nAnswer: J","question":"When was the current Dalai Lama born?","choices":["1955","1985","1975","1990","2000","1965","1900","1925","1940","1935"],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":11008,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on the New Testament for help. The synoptic Gospels are those that include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and wording. These are Matthew, Mark, and Luke.\nAnswer: E","question":"Which are the synoptic Gospels?","choices":["Luke, John, Paul","John, Luke, Mark","Peter, John, Mark","Matthew, Mark, John","Matthew, Mark, Luke","Mark, Luke, Paul","Matthew, Mark, Peter","Peter, Mark, Luke","John, Matthew, Paul","Matthew, Peter, Luke"],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11009,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. The statement provided involves making a decision based on the pattern of previous answers rather than the content of the question itself. This is an example of the Gambler's Fallacy, which is the mistaken belief that past random events affect the probabilities in future random events.\n\nAnswer: A","question":"I don't know what the answer is to number 8. But Heather hasn't made the third option into the correct answer for a while, and even then only once, so I'm guessing that this is the fallacy of Composition!","choices":["Gambler's Fallacy","Equivocation","Fallacy of Composition","Appeal to Pity"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11010,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The sarcastic statement \"Yeah, right. Like that's ever going to happen\" is dismissive and mocks the argument without addressing its substance. This type of response is known as the \"horse laugh\" fallacy, which involves ridiculing an argument instead of engaging with it logically.\n\nAnswer: G","question":"When someone responds to your argument with a sarcastic statement such as, \"Yeah, right. Like that's ever going to happen,\" that person may have committed which fallacy?","choices":["tu quoque","appeal to ignorance","argumentum ad populum","false cause","appeal to indignation","appeal to spite","horse laugh","slippery slope","straw man fallacy","argumentum ad hominem"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11011,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The argument presented attacks the intelligence of people who attend college, rather than addressing the actual reasons why they might succeed or fail. This is an example of an ad hominem fallacy, where the argument is directed against a person rather than addressing the issue at hand.\n\nAnswer: A","question":"I don't understand why everyone thinks they belong in college. After all, everyone knows that when you are intelligent you'll succeed. But so many people that elect to attend college don't have even the most basic intelligence. How do they expect to get anywhere here?","choices":["Attacking the Person (ad hominem)","Straw Man","Denying the Antecedent","Begging the Question"],"correct":"C","answer":"A","score":0}
{"number":11012,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy of appeal to loyalty involves arguing that someone should do something to show loyalty to a person or group.\nAnswer: B","question":"Which of the following describes the fallacy of appeal to loyalty?","choices":["arguing that someone should do something to be loyal to an opposing person or group","arguing that someone should do something to be loyal to a person or a group","arguing that someone should do something because it is the traditional thing to do","arguing that someone should do something because it will make him or her better liked by others","arguing that an idea should be rejected only because of who originated the idea","responding to an argument with an expression of derision","arguing that an idea should be accepted because it is the most recent or modern idea","arguing that an idea should be accepted only because of who originated the idea","arguing that someone should do something because it is the popular thing to do","arguing that an idea should be accepted because it has been around for a long time"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11013,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. \"Ad lazarum\" is a specific type of false sign that argues there is necessarily an inverse relationship between cost and quality, so something is necessarily a better value because it costs less.\nAnswer: A","question":"\" _Ad lazarum_ \" is","choices":["a specific type of false sign that argues there is necessarily an inverse relationship between cost and quality, so something is necessarily a better value because it costs less","arguing that what is true of an entire object must also be true of every individual part of that object","a specific type of false analogy that reasons what is true about nature must be true about humans","drawing a conclusion without enough evidence to support that conclusion"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11014,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy of loaded language involves using emotionally charged language to create an impression about the subject of a claim, without making an argument that the language fits the subject.\nAnswer: I","question":"Which of the following is the best explanation of the fallacy of loaded language?","choices":["Using complex or technical language to make an argument seem more credible or sophisticated than it actually is.","Using language that appeals to the audience's prejudices or biases to win an argument, rather than relying on logical reasoning.","Using language that is intentionally misleading or deceptive to convince the audience of a particular point of view.","Using language that is overly formal or academic to intimidate the audience and discourage them from questioning the argument.","Using language and punctuation in a way that a statement can have multiple interpretations, so it's not really clear what is meant.","Using language that is overly emotional or dramatic to distract from the lack of substantive evidence or logical reasoning.","Using language that is intentionally vague or ambiguous to obscure the truth or mislead the audience.","Confusing figurative language with literal language","Using emotionally charged language to create an impression about the subject of a claim, without making an argument that the language fits the subject.","Referring to an act committed by an opponent in negative terms while referring to the same act committed by the arguer or supporters in favorable terms."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":11015,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Philosophy involves clarifying concepts and examining the justification of beliefs. The two questions that best summarize these activities are \"what do you mean?\" (clarifying concepts) and \"how do you know?\" (examining justification).\nAnswer: C","question":"Philosophy is concerned primarily with identifying beliefs about human existence and evaluating arguments that support those beliefs.  These activities can be summarized in two questions that drive philosophical investigations:","choices":["who really believes X? and how can we explain differences in people's beliefs?","what is the origin of thought? and how does it impact our actions?","what do you mean? and how do you know?","how do beliefs shape society? and why do beliefs differ?","how do philosophers argue? and are their differences important?","why is there something rather than nothing? and how can we be sure?","how can we prove it? and what if we're wrong?","why should we bother? and what are the consequences of our believing one thing over another?"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11016,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Aristotle's philosophy for help. Aristotle's view is that the essence of a thing does not exist apart from the individual instances of that thing. Therefore, if all individuals of a species were destroyed, their essence or form would also be destroyed.\nAnswer: J","question":"Aristotle says  that what makes things be what they are--their essence--does not exist apart from individ-uals that exist in the world.  So if all the members of a species were destroyed, then their essence or form:","choices":["would remain preserved in the memories of the remaining species.","would not be destroyed because there was no essence or form originally to be destroyed; there are only individuals, not universal essences or natures of things.","would evolve into a different form or essence.","would be destroyed only if the species was eliminated by unnatural causes.","would be absorbed by another species.","would transform into the essence of another existing species.","would be destroyed only if there were no one around to remember the species.","would exist as long as there are traces or remnants of the species left in the world.","would continue existing (as with Plato's Forms) in some other realm of being.","would likewise be destroyed."],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":11017,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to Thomas Hobbes, injustice is defined as the failure to abide by a contract or covenant. In his work \"Leviathan,\" Hobbes argues that justice consists in keeping valid covenants, and thus, injustice is the breaking of such covenants.\n\nAnswer: A","question":"According to Hobbes, the definition of injustice is _____.","choices":["failure to abide by a contract","disregard for societal norms","acting against the welfare of others","disobedience to parental authority","disobedience to God's law","acting against one's own self-interest","failure to follow the rule of law","failure to respect inherent rights","failure to uphold moral duties","disobedience to a sovereign"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11018,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. John Stuart Mill, a prominent utilitarian philosopher, defines \"utility\" in his work \"Utilitarianism\" as pleasure and the absence of pain.\nAnswer: H","question":"Mill defines “utility” as:","choices":["advantage or benefit to the user.","usefulness for some craft.","the ability to satisfy wants and needs.","usefulness to an individual.","it promotes the interests of all and does not harm anyone.","it promotes self-interest.","the state of being useful, profitable, or beneficial.","pleasure and the absence of pain.","usefulness to society.","it benefits the majority and harms the minority."],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":11019,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. Susan Wolf is known for her critique of moral theories that demand too much from individuals, particularly in the context of moral sainthood. She argues that such interpretations can yield an unattractive picture of what it means to be morally good.\n\nAnswer: E","question":"Wolf claims that interpreting Kant’s ethics so that it consists of a finite set of constraints:","choices":["contradicts the basic principles of Kantian ethics.","simplifies the complexity of Kantian ethics.","transforms the theory into a form of contractarianism.","makes it too lenient and flexible.","yields an unattractive picture of moral sainthood.","distorts the fundamental nature of the theory.","makes the theory too abstract and impractical.","implausibly places an “upper bound” on moral worthiness.","yields a theory that is too demanding.","results in a philosophical dilemma."],"correct":"H","answer":"E","score":0}
{"number":11020,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. According to Thomas Hobbes, in the state of nature, which he describes as a state of war of everyone against everyone, every man has a right to everything. This is because there are no laws or authorities to restrict what individuals can do, and each person has the liberty to use any means necessary for their own survival.\n\nAnswer: H","question":"According to Hobbes, in the condition of man in which there is a state of war of everyone against everyone, every man has a right to _____.","choices":["due process","property","self-defense","freedom of speech","lawful treatment","good health","privacy","everything","peace and harmony","some things"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":11021,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Cicero, a Roman philosopher, argued that we should follow Nature as our guide to avoid moral error. He believed that natural law, which is derived from nature and reason, provides the basis for moral behavior.\nAnswer: D","question":"Cicero argues that we will never go morally astray if we:","choices":["follow religious edicts.","follow historical precedents.","follow the teachings of philosophers.","follow Nature as our guide.","follow our conscience.","follow the laws.","follow our personal desires.","follow our instincts.","follow societal norms.","follow our friends and family."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11022,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to authoritative sources on Thomas Aquinas' philosophy for help. According to Aquinas, the ultimate perfection of operation is delight, which is the enjoyment or fulfillment that comes from achieving one's ultimate end or purpose.\n\nAnswer: H","question":"Aquinas claims that the ultimate perfection of operation is:","choices":["peace.","virtue.","Godliness.","wisdom.","happiness.","faith.","tranquility.","delight.","pleasure.","purity."],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":11023,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Augustine for help. Augustine, in his works, often discusses the importance of understanding the causes of good and evil as part of achieving true happiness.\nAnswer: D","question":"Augustine claims that to be happy, one must know:","choices":["the fundamental laws of physics.","the purpose of life.","the existence of the divine.","the causes of good and evil.","both a and b.","both e and f.","the nature of the universe.","neither e nor f.","neither a nor b.","the causes of natural occurrences."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11024,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. In Plato's dialogue \"Euthyphro,\" Socrates objects to Euthyphro's definition of the holy as prosecuting wrongdoers by pointing out that there are many other things that are also holy. This objection is based on the idea that defining holiness solely as prosecuting wrongdoers is too narrow and does not capture the full scope of what is considered holy.\n\nAnswer: B","question":"When Euthyphro attempts to define the holy as prosecuting wrongdoers, Socrates objects that:","choices":["it is impossible for humans to judge what is holy.","there are many other things that are also holy.","the concept of 'wrongdoing' is too subjective to define holiness.","only gods can decide who the wrongdoers are.","Euthyphro is not a reliable authority on what is holy.","all of the above.","prosecuting wrongdoers is not always holy.","all actions have the potential to be holy.","prosecuting wrongdoers is not a religious matter."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11025,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Cicero's philosophy for help. Cicero's ethical teachings emphasize justice, duty, and moral integrity. He argues that it is never permissible to commit acts of injustice, harm others for personal gain, steal, break promises, betray friends, lie, or act out of selfishness. Therefore, the correct answer must be \"none of the above.\"\nAnswer: B","question":"Cicero claims that it is sometimes permissible to:","choices":["commit acts of injustice.","none of the above.","harm others for personal gain.","act against societal norms.","disobey laws.","steal.","break one’s promises.","betray one's friends.","lie.","act out of selfishness."],"correct":"G","answer":"B","score":0}
{"number":11026,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Thomas Hobbes for help. According to Hobbes, injustice is defined as the failure to perform one’s covenant or agreement.\nAnswer: C","question":"Hobbes defines injustice as:","choices":["not adhering to societal norms.","being dishonest in any situation.","failure to perform one’s covenant.","treating another person as a mere means.","manipulating others for personal gain.","behaving immorally.","violating a law of nature.","disregarding the rights of others.","taking more than one’s share of a good.","acting against the will of the sovereign."],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11028,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Socrates for help. Socrates' wisdom is often described as his awareness of his own ignorance, particularly regarding the essences of things like justice. However, he also recognizes the importance of seeking knowledge about these essences. Therefore, his wisdom lies in knowing what he is supposed to be looking for—knowledge of the essences of things.\nAnswer: G","question":"In spite of the fact that Socrates claims to be ignorant of the essence or nature of certain things like justice, he is wise insofar as he recognizes that without such knowledge actions are rationally unjustified.  That is, his wisdom consists in his recognition not only that he is ignorant of such essences but also that:","choices":["justice, like knowledge, requires that we admit that we know nothing and never will.","he is wise because he knows that he can learn from others.","his wisdom is based on his ability to question everything and everyone.","his method of asking questions about essences is itself unjustified because he does not know why he engages in such a practice.","his wisdom is in knowing that he doesn't need to know the essence of things to be wise.","the essence of things is not important for him to be wise.","he knows what he is supposed to be looking for--knowledge of the essences of things.","his wisdom lies in knowing that he knows more than he thinks he does."],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11029,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to Epicurus, death is the deprivation of all sensation and should not be feared because it does not affect the living.\nAnswer: G","question":"Epicurus conceives of death as:","choices":["the greatest harm that one can suffer.","an illusion that does not truly exist.","the transformation into a higher being.","one component of the continuous cycle of rebirth.","a state of eternal suffering.","the ultimate state of bliss.","the deprivation of all sensation.","the final stage of life's journey.","the beginning of the afterlife.","a necessary stage to reach enlightenment."],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11030,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Socrates for help. Socrates believed that virtue is a form of knowledge and that understanding how to live a good life requires examining one's own beliefs and actions. This examination leads to understanding universal norms or values that guide human behavior. Therefore, the belief that \"virtue is knowledge\" ties into the idea that an unexamined life lacks this essential understanding.\n\nAnswer: D","question":" For Socrates, the belief that \"virtue is knowledge\" is related to his claim that \"the unexamined life is not worth living,\" because he believes that:","choices":["the unexamined life is one in which we live day to day without asking questions about who we are and why we are here in the first place.","the Delphic oracle identified Socrates as the wisest person on earth because he claimed to know nothing.","by questioning traditional beliefs, we learn to recognize how some answers seem to be more satisfactory than others.","the only way to be a good or worthwhile person is to know how human beings should behave based on universal norms or values."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11031,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The given proposition is (∃x)[(Ax • Lx) • (∃y)(Hy • Bxy)], which translates to \"There exists an x such that x is an apartment and x is large, and there exists a y such that y is a house and x is bigger than y.\" This means that some large apartments are bigger than some houses.\nAnswer: E","question":" Select the best English interpretation of the given proposition, using the following translation key: Ax: x is an apartment Hx: x is a house Lx: x is large Bxy: x is bigger than y (∃x)[(Ax • Lx) • (∃y)(Hy • Bxy)]","choices":["All large apartments are bigger than some houses.","Some small houses are smaller than some large apartments.","All houses are smaller than some large apartments.","Some houses are bigger than all large apartments.","Some large apartments are bigger than some houses.","Some houses are the same size as some large apartments.","No large apartments are bigger than houses.","Some houses are bigger thatn some large apartments.","Some large houses are bigger than some apartments.","Some large apartments are smaller than some houses."],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11032,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. We need to express that every jellybean is sweeter than every fruit. This can be translated into predicate logic as follows:\n\n- For all x, if x is a jellybean (Jx), then for all y, if y is a fruit (Fy), then x is sweeter than y (Sxy).\n\nThis corresponds to the formula:\n(∀x)[Jx ⊃ (∀y)(Fy ⊃ Sxy)]\n\nAnswer: E","question":" Select the best translation into predicate logic. All jellybeans are sweeter than all fruit. (Fx: x is a fruit; Jx: x is a jellybean; Sxy: x is sweeter than y)","choices":["(∀x)[Jx ⊃ (∀y)(Jy ⊃ Sxy)]","(∀x)(∀y)[(Fx • Jy) • Sxy]","(∀x)(∀y)[Sxy ⊃ (Jx • Fy)]","(∀x)(∀y)[Sxy ⊃ (Fy • Jx)]","(∀x)[Jx ⊃ (∀y)(Fy ⊃ Sxy)]","(∀x)(∀y)[(Jx • Fy) ⊃ Sxy]","(∀x)(∀y)[(Fx • Jy) ⊃ Sxy]","(∀x)[Fx ⊃ (∀y)(Jy ⊃ Sxy)]","(∀x)[Fx ⊃ (∀y)(Sxy ⊃ Jy)]","(∀x)[Jx ⊃ (∀y)(Sxy ⊃ Fy)]"],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11033,"response":"Explanation: Let's use an indirect truth table to determine the validity of the argument. The argument is:\n\n1. (A ∨ B) ⊃ C\n2. C ⊃ ~D\n3. / D ⊃ A\n\nTo test for validity, we assume the conclusion is false and see if this leads to a contradiction.\n\nAssume D ⊃ A is false:\n- If D ⊃ A is false, then D is true and A is false (since D ⊃ A is only false when D is true and A is false).\n\nNow, substitute these values into the premises:\n\n1. (A ∨ B) ⊃ C\n   - Since A is false, (A ∨ B) simplifies to B.\n   - So, B ⊃ C must hold.\n\n2. C ⊃ ~D\n   - Since D is true, ~D is false.\n   - So, C must be false (because C ⊃ ~D can only be true if C is false when ~D is false).\n\nNow we have:\n- A = false\n- D = true\n- C = false\n\nSubstitute these into premise 1:\n- B ⊃ C becomes B ⊃ false, which means B must be false.\n\nSo we have:\n- A = false\n- B = false\n- C = false\n- D = true\n\nThis set of values does not lead to any contradictions with the premises. Therefore, the argument is invalid and we have found a counterexample where:\n- A = false\n- B = false\n- C = false\n- D = true\n\nThis matches option D.\n\nAnswer: D","question":"Use indirect truth tables to determine whether the following argument is valid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\n(A ∨ B) ⊃ C\nC ⊃ ~D / D ⊃ A","choices":["Invalid. Counterexample when B and D are true and A and C are false","Valid. There are no counterexamples","Invalid. Counterexample when B, C, and D are true and A is false","Invalid. Counterexample when A, B, and C are false and D is true","Invalid. Counterexample when A, C, and D are true and B is false","Invalid. Counterexample when A, B, and C are true and D is false","Invalid. Counterexample when D is true, A, B and C are false","Invalid. Counterexample when B and C are true and A and D are false","Invalid. Counterexample when A is true, B, C and D are false","Valid"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11034,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. Let \"C\" denote \"Caroline is sweet,\" \"J\" denote \"Janet is engaged to Brad.\" The phrase \"if, and only if\" translates to the biconditional operator (≡). Therefore, the correct translation is \"Cs ≡ Ej\".\nAnswer: C","question":"Select the best translation into predicate logic: Caroline is sweet if, and only if, Janet is engaged to Brad.","choices":["Sx ≡ Jy","Ej ≡ Cs","Sc ≡ Ej","Cs ⊃ Ej","Se ≡ Cj","Sj ≡ Ce","Cj ⊃ Es","sC ≡ eJ","Cs ≡ Bj","Cb ≡ Je"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11035,"response":"Explanation: Let's construct the truth table step by step to determine the validity of the argument.\n\nThe argument is:\n1. ~X ⊃ Y\n2. Y ⊃ Z\n3. ~Z\n4. Therefore, ~X\n\nLet's list all possible truth values for X, Y, and Z:\n\n| X | Y | Z | ~X | ~Z | ~X ⊃ Y | Y ⊃ Z | Conclusion: ~X |\n|---|---|---|----|----|--------|-------|----------------|\n| T | T | T |  F |  F |    T   |   T   |       F        |\n| T | T | F |  F |  T |    T   |   F   |       F        |\n| T | F | T |  F |  F |    F   |   T   |       F        |\n| T | F | F |  F |  T |    T   |   T   |       F        |\n| F | T | T |  T |  F |    T   |   T   |       T        |\n| F | T | F |  T |  T |    T   |   F   |       T        |\n| F | F | T |  T |  F |    F   |   T   |       T        |\n| F | F | F |  T |  T |_True_ _True_ _True_|\n\nFrom the truth table, we can see that the argument is invalid when X is true and both Y and Z are false (row 4). This provides a counterexample to the argument.\n\nAnswer: H","question":" Construct a complete truth table for the following argument. Then, using the truth table, determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\n~X ⊃ Y\nY ⊃ Z\n~Z / ~X","choices":["Valid. All combinations of X, Y, and Z are true","Valid. No counterexamples exist","Valid","Invalid. Counterexample when Y and Z are true and Z is false","Invalid. Counterexample when X, Y, and Z are true","Invalid. Counterexample when X is false and Y and Z are true","Invalid. Counterexample when Y is true and X and Z are false","Invalid. Counterexample when X is true and Y and Z are false","Invalid. Counterexample when X, Y, and Z are false","Invalid. Counterexample when X and Z are true and Y is false"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":11036,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on predicate logic for help. The sentence \"Some kind people help some endangered species\" can be broken down as follows:\n- \"Some kind people\" translates to (∃x)(Kx • Px), where x is a kind person.\n- \"Some endangered species\" translates to (∃y)(Ey • Sy), where y is an endangered species.\n- \"Help\" translates to Hxy, where x helps y.\n\nCombining these parts, we get:\n(∃x){(Kx • Px) • (∃y)[(Ey • Sy) • Hxy]}\n\nAnswer: B","question":" S Select the best translation into predicate logic. Some kind people help some endangered species. (Ex: x is endangered; Kx: x is kind; Px: x is a person; Sx: x is a species; Hxy: x helps y)","choices":["(∃x)(∃y){[(Kx • Sx) • (Ey • Py)] • Hxy}","(∃x){(Kx • Px) • (∃y)[(Ey • Sy) • Hxy]}","(∃x)(∃y){[(Kx • Px) • (Ey • Sy)] • Hxy}","(∃x)(∃y){[(Kx • Px) • (Ey • Sy)] ⊃ Hyx}","(∃x)(∃y){[(Kx • Px) • (Ey • Sy)] ⊃ Hxy}","(∃x)(∃y){[(Kx • Sx) • (Ey • Py)] • Hyx}"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11037,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The statement \"All first-year students take a swim test\" can be translated into predicate logic as \"For all x, if x is a first-year student, then x takes a swim test.\" Let Fx denote \"x is a first-year student\" and Sx denote \"x takes a swim test.\" The correct translation would be (∀x)(Fx ⊃ Sx).\n\nAnswer: J","question":" Select the best translation into predicate logic: All first-year students take a swim test.","choices":["(∀x)(Sx ⊃ Fx)","(∀x)(Fx ≡ Sx)","(∀x)(Sx ∨ Fx)","(∀x)(Sx ≡ Fx)","(∀x)(Sx ∧ Fx)","(∀x)(Fx ∨ Sx)","(∀x)(~Sx ⊃ Fx)","(∀x)(Fx ∧ Sx)","(∀x)(Fx ⊃ ~Sx)","(∀x)(Fx ⊃ Sx)"],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":11038,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"Dylan likes neither math nor science\" can be translated into predicate logic as \"Dylan does not like math and Dylan does not like science.\" This is best represented by the conjunction of the negations of both propositions: ~M ∧ ~S.\n\nAnswer: C","question":" Which of the given formulas of PL is the best symbolization of the following sentence?\nDylan likes neither math nor science.","choices":["M ∨ ~S","~M ∨ S","~M ∧ ~S","M ∨ S","M ∧ S","~(~M ∨ S)","~(M • S)","~(M ∨ S)","~(M ∧ ~S)","~M ∨ ~S"],"correct":"H","answer":"C","score":0}
{"number":11039,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on bioethics and SCNT (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer) for help. Pence's argument against SCNT often revolves around the ethical implications and the assumption that parents might be prioritizing their own needs or desires over the best interests of the child created through this technology. This aligns with the idea that people who object to SCNT believe that parents are prioritizing their own needs over the child's.\n\nAnswer: A","question":" What assumption does Pence think people who object to SCNT make when they say that SCNT is not best for the child?","choices":["The parents are prioritizing their own needs over the child's.","We can't tell what the motives of the parents are.","The parents have ulterior motives.","The parents have good motives.","The parents are incapable of making decisions for the child.","none of the above","The parents are indifferent to the child's wellbeing.","The parents are making an uninformed decision.","The parents are exploiting the child for personal gain.","The parents have bad motives."],"correct":"D","answer":"A","score":0}
{"number":11040,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to authoritative sources on political philosophy for help. According to Ashford, the right test of whether or not legal and economic structures are minimally just is to see whether or not they recognize, enforce, and implement duties not to violate human rights.\nAnswer: D","question":" Ashford thinks that the right test of whether or not legal and economic structures are minimally just is to see whether or not","choices":["they are accepted by the majority of people.","they provide equal opportunities for all.","they help develop human capabilities.","they recognize, enforce, and implement duties not to violate human rights.","they maximize the amount of happiness in the world.","they are universalizable.","they minimize the amount of suffering in the world.","they prioritize the needs of the marginalized.","they uphold the principles of democratic governance.","they ensure a fair distribution of wealth."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11041,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics for help. In James Rachels's thought experiment, Smith's action of holding the child underwater is intended to illustrate the concept of active killing, as opposed to passive letting die.\nAnswer: I","question":" In Rachels's thought experiment with Smith and Jones, Smith's action (i.e., his holding the child underwater) is supposed to be an example of","choices":["euthanasia.","none of the above","self-defense.","natural death.","involuntary manslaughter.","premeditated murder.","accidental death.","letting die.","killing.","assisted suicide."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":11042,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to authoritative sources on hate speech and free expression for help. Richardson-Self's argument is nuanced and recognizes that sexist speech can be considered hate speech when it promotes discrimination or incites hatred, even if it does not involve direct violence. Therefore, the most accurate answer is that sexist speech can be considered hate speech when it promotes discrimination.\n\nAnswer: I","question":" Richardson-Self argues that sexist speech","choices":["Can never be considered hate speech regardless of context","Is never hate speech because it is a form of free expression.","is always hate speech, because it does not involves violence.","is not always hate speech, because it does not involve violence","is always hate speech, because it involves violence.","Is not hate speech because it is protected under freedom of speech","Is always hate speech because it promotes gender inequality","Is only hate speech when it directly incites violence","Can be considered hate speech when it promotes discrimination","I s not always hate speech, because it always involves violence."],"correct":"D","answer":"I","score":0}
{"number":11043,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Peter Singer is known for his work in animal ethics and often references Jeremy Bentham as a historical defender who recognized that the principle of equal consideration of interests applies to non-human animals as well as humans. Bentham famously argued that the capacity for suffering, not the ability to reason, should determine whether a being's interests are considered.\n\nAnswer: D","question":" According to Singer, which of the following historical defenders of the principle of equal consideration of interests was one of the few to recognize that the principle applies to members of other species as well as to our own?","choices":["Aristotle","Friedrich Nietzsche","David Hume","Jeremy Bentham","John Stuart Mill","Thomas Hobbes","Immanuel Kant","Jean-Jacques Rousseau","Socrates","Rene Descartes"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11044,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Kant's moral theory is based on the concept of duty and the categorical imperative, which are not concerned with consequences but rather with the inherent morality of actions. Therefore, it does not align with consequentialism, virtue ethics, or utilitarianism.\nAnswer: D","question":" Kant's moral theory is a version of","choices":["consequentialism.","virtue ethics.","utilitarianism.","none of the above"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11045,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Alastair Norcross's article \"Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases\" for help. Norcross discusses various morally relevant differences between Fred's behavior and that of consumers of factory-raised meat. He addresses the suffering of different animals (A), the necessity of suffering for gustatory pleasure (B), and the ability to prevent suffering (C). Since all these points are discussed by Norcross, the correct answer is \"none of the above.\"\n\nAnswer: D","question":" Which of the following potentially morally relevant differences between Fred's behavior and the behavior of the consumers of factory-raised meat does Norcross not discuss?","choices":["Fred's behavior involves the suffering of puppies, whereas the behavior of meat-eaters \"merely\" involves the suffering of chickens, pigs, cows, calves, sheep, and the like.","The suffering of the puppies is necessary for gustatory pleasure, whereas the suffering of animals on factory farms is simply a by-product of the conditions dictated by economic considerations.","Fred could prevent the suffering of the puppies, whereas meat-eaters can't prevent the suffering of the animals they consume.","none of the above"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11046,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. According to Kant's Humanity formulation of the Categorical Imperative, we must treat humanity, whether in our own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means but always at the same time as an end. This means that we should not use people solely as tools for our own purposes but should respect their inherent worth and dignity.\n\nAnswer: A","question":" According to the Humanity formulation of Kant's principle, we must treat persons","choices":["never as a mere means.","always as a means to an end.","in ways that serve the best interests of the majority.","in ways that promote universal happiness.","in ways that produce the most good for everyone concerned.","in ways that serve one's own best interests.","never as a means.","never as an end in itself."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11047,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics for help. Marcia Baron argues that the artificiality of ticking bomb cases is problematic because the artificial assumptions are, in fact, empirical claims that are central to the debate. This means that these assumptions are not just hypothetical but are treated as if they reflect real-world situations, which can mislead the ethical analysis.\n\nAnswer: A","question":" Marcia Baron argues that the artificiality of ticking bomb cases is problematic because","choices":["the artificial assumptions are, in fact, empirical claims that are central to the debate.","it leads us to believe that torture is always permissible.","all artificial thought experiments are philosophically useless."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11048,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Thomas Aquinas identified self-evident propositions as those that are known to be true by their nature and do not require proof. Examples include logical and mathematical truths, as well as certain basic metaphysical principles.\n\nAquinas's examples of self-evident propositions typically include statements like \"The same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time\" (E), \"Every whole is greater than its part\" (H), and \"Things equal to one and the same are equal to one another\" (I).\n\nThe statement \"The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us\" (F) is a religious or theological statement rather than a self-evident proposition in the philosophical sense described by Aquinas.\n\nAnswer: F","question":" Which of the following is not an example Aquinas gives of a self-evident proposition?","choices":["\"Man is a rational being.\"","\"All bachelors are unmarried.\"","\"Night follows day.\"","\"The sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees.\"","\"The same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time.\"","\"The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us.\"","\"A square has four sides.\"","\"Every whole is greater than its part.\"","\"Things equal to one and the same are equal to one another.\"","\"An effect depends on its cause.\""],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":11049,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics for help. According to Peter Carruthers, a philosopher known for his work in animal ethics, our duties to animals are not direct but rather indirect and derivative. He argues that our moral obligations towards animals arise from our duties to other human beings.\n\nAnswer: I","question":" According to Carruthers, our duties to animals are","choices":["conditional and complex.","absolute and fundamental.","direct and secondary.","negotiable and fluctuating.","indirect but fundamental.","direct and basic.","perfect (rather than imperfect).","primary but not imperative.","indirect and derivative.","nonexistent."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":11050,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on moral philosophy for help. Rule consequentialism states that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on whether it is required, permitted, or prohibited by a rule whose consequences are best. This means that actions are evaluated based on the rules that, if followed, would lead to the best overall outcomes.\n\nAnswer: J","question":" According to rule consequentialism, the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on","choices":["the individual's personal beliefs and morals at the time of the action.","whether a virtuous person would endorse a rule requiring, permitting, or prohibiting that action.","that action's relationship to the operative rules of law.","the action's alignment with universally accepted human rights.","the immediate consequences of the action, regardless of any established rules.","the logical consistency behind the motive of actions of the same type.","whether a religious doctrine approves or disapproves of the action.","whether the action aligns with the principles of utilitarianism.","the societal norms and customs relevant to the action.","whether that action is required, permitted, or prohibited by a rule the consequences of which are best."],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":11051,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. According to the provided text, Lukianoff and Haidt argue that American colleges and universities encourage students to \"exaggerate danger, use dichotomous (or binary) thinking, amplify their first emotional responses, and engage in a number of other cognitive distortions.\" This indicates that they believe colleges are encouraging emotional reasoning rather than critical or reflective reasoning.\n\nAnswer: A","question":" Lukianoff and Haidt argue that American colleges and universities now encourage","choices":["emotional reasoning.","critical reasoning.","reflective reasoning.","all of the above."],"correct":"B","answer":"A","score":0}
{"number":11052,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the context provided and Wikipedia articles on Buddhism in Japan for help. According to historical records, the first Buddhist temple in Japan, Asukadera (also known as Hōkō-ji), was constructed in 596 CE.\nAnswer: D","question":" When was the first Buddhist temple constructed in Japan?","choices":["325 CE","119 CE","451 CE","596 CE"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11053,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Islamic texts for help. The term \"Qur'an\" is derived from the Arabic verb \"qara'a,\" which means \"to recite\" or \"to read.\" Therefore, the term \"Qur'an\" literally means \"The Recitation.\"\nAnswer: A","question":"What does the term \"Qur'an\" literally mean?","choices":["The Recitation","The Prophecy","The Revelations","The Narrative","The Pillars","The Teachings","The Law","The Holy Book","The Scriptures","The Commands"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11054,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Jainism for help. The Digambara sect of Jainism does not allow women to achieve full renunciation and insists that they must be reborn as men to attain liberation. In contrast, the Svetambara sect allows women to lead a life of full renunciation and become nuns.\n\nAnswer: B","question":" Which Jaina group only allows women to lead a life of semi-renunciation?","choices":["Murtipujaka","Digambara","Agama","Yapaniya","Jain Yoga","Terapanthi","Jina","Shramana","Svetambara","Tirthankara"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11055,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Islamic history for help. The Battle of Badr was a significant early battle that marked a turning point for the Muslim community, but it did not directly lead to the conversion of Mecca. The Battle of Hunayn occurred after the conquest of Mecca. The conversion of Mecca itself happened in 630 CE, following the Muslims' peaceful conquest of the city. However, none of the battles listed directly led to the conversion of Mecca except for the broader context provided by earlier victories and events.\n\nGiven this context, the closest answer is:\nAnswer: A","question":" Which early battle led to the conversion of Mecca?","choices":["The Battle of Badr","The Battle of Yamama","The Battle of Hunayn","The Battle of Mut'ah","The Battle of Tabuk","The Battle of Khaybar","The Battle of Camel","The Battle of the Trench","The Battle of Ta'if","The Battle of Uhud"],"correct":"H","answer":"A","score":0}
{"number":11056,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to authoritative sources on Jainism for help. Chandanbala, also known as Chandan Bala, is a significant figure in Jain tradition. According to Jain texts, she had 36,000 female renouncers under her tutelage.\nAnswer: A","question":"How many female renouncers were under the tutelage of Chandanbala?","choices":["36,000","7,000","24,000","50,000","28,000","18,000","42,000","15,000","12,000","30,000"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11057,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the context provided on Sharia and Islamic jurisprudence for help. Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) includes various sources and methods for deriving legal rulings, such as sacred texts (Quran and Hadith), consensus (ijma), personal reasoning (ijtihad), tradition (sunnah), clerical authority, ethical principles, historical context, legal precedent, and interpretation. However, \"Divine inspiration\" is not typically considered a source of jurisprudence in the same way as the other elements listed.\n\nAnswer: E","question":"Which of the following is NOT included in the Islamic understanding of jurisprudence?","choices":["Tradition","Clerical authority","Ethical principles","Historical context","Divine inspiration","Personal reasoning","Legal precedent","Consensus","Sacred texts","Interpretation"],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11058,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Japanese history for help. The period of Japan's closure to Christianity and Europe, known as Sakoku, began in the early 17th century and lasted until the mid-19th century. Specifically, the Sakoku Edict of 1639 effectively closed Japan to most foreign influence and trade, particularly with Europeans, and this policy remained in place until Commodore Perry's arrival in 1853.\n\nAnswer: G","question":" Which of the following is the timespan for Japan's closure to Christianity and Europe?","choices":["1853-1945","1603-1868","1587-1639","1749-1945","1052-1616","1614-1859","1641-1853","1492-1641","1517-1870","1792-1941"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11059,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy of appeal to popularity (ad populum) involves arguing that a claim is true or an action is right simply because many people believe it or do it. This fits best with option B, which suggests doing something to be better liked by others.\nAnswer: B","question":"Which of the following describes the fallacy of appeal to popularity?","choices":["saying someone should do something because he or she dislikes someone else","saying someone should do something to be better liked by others","saying someone should do something because it will make him or her feel good","saying someone should accept an idea because of the source of the idea"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11060,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy of figure of speech, also known as the \"fallacy of equivocation,\" occurs when a figure of speech is misinterpreted as a literal argument or statement. This involves confusing figurative language with literal language.\nAnswer: J","question":"Which of the following best describes the fallacy of figure of speech?","choices":["Assuming that a particular figure of speech is universally understood.","Using an irrelevant figure of speech to divert attention from the argument.","A form of loaded language that uses an emotionally charged restatement of the claim in place of support for the claim.","Misinterpreting a figure of speech as a logical argument.","Misusing a figure of speech in order to make a claim sound more persuasive.","Confusing the meaning of a figure of speech with its literal translation.","Treating something that exists in the mind as if it was a real object.","Using a figure of speech in place of a factual claim.","Using emotionally charged language to create an impression about the subject of a claim, without making an argument that the language fits the subject.","Confusing figurative language with literal language."],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":11061,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The argument presented assumes that because someone denies being a Communist, they must be a Communist, based on the premise that Communists always deny their membership. This is an example of \"Affirming the Consequent.\" The structure is: If someone is a Communist, they will deny it; this person denies it; therefore, this person is a Communist.\n\nAnswer: B","question":"We must assume that he is a Communist, because he says that he is not, and we know that Communists are taught always to deny party membership.","choices":["Argument from Ignorance","Affirming the Consequent","Denying the Antecedent","Begging the Question"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11062,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Socrates famously stated that \"the unexamined life is not worth living,\" emphasizing the importance of self-reflection and philosophical inquiry for the well-being of the soul.\nAnswer: A","question":"For Socrates, an unexamined life is a tragedy because it results in grievous harm to _____.","choices":["the soul","the economic system","the body","the individual's reputation","the community","the state","the family","the justice system","the educational system","the environment"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11063,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Joseph Butler, an 18th-century philosopher and theologian, argued that it is impossible for a person to do something of which they do not themselves approve. This is because he believed that human actions are guided by conscience and self-approval.\nAnswer: I","question":"According to Butler, it is impossible to:","choices":["do that which is good and not to approve of it.","be motivated by genuine benevolence.","approve of the actions of others without understanding them.","act without a sense of self-interest.","feel empathy without taking action.","approve of the actions of others without imitating them.","have a sense of morality without having a conscience.","act in ways that contradict societal norms.","do something of which one does not oneself approve.","perceive the good without desiring it."],"correct":"A","answer":"I","score":0}
{"number":11064,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Meno's Paradox, as presented by Plato, questions how one can search for knowledge of something if one does not already know what it is. Specifically, the paradox asks how anyone can recognize the correct answer to a question without already knowing the answer.\nAnswer: A","question":"Plato's suggestion that knowledge is innate or remembered as a result of being triggered by experience is in response to a paradox he sets up for himself.  The paradox, now referred to as Meno's Paradox, has to do with the question of:","choices":["how anyone can recognize the correct answer to a question without already knowing the answer.","how the soul can reincarnate if it carries no memory of past lives.","how knowledge of the Forms can ever be anything other than a generalization of experience.","how a person can remember anything about the realm of the Forms after the shock of being born into this world.","how concepts bound to the realm of becoming have meaning only when associated with the realm of Being.","how a person can possess knowledge without having been taught.","how a person can forget something they once knew clearly.","how it is possible to know something that one has not experienced.","how knowledge can be both innate and learned at the same time.","how the human mind can conceive of the Forms without physical representation."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11065,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. David Gauthier, a prominent philosopher in the field of rational choice and moral theory, argues that practical rationality is fundamentally about deliberative justification. This means that practical rationality involves justifying one's actions through a process of deliberation.\n\nAnswer: G","question":"Gauthier claims that there is nothing for practical rationality to be besides:","choices":["logical justification.","epistemic justification.","existential justification.","theoretical justification.","moral justification.","emotional justification.","deliberative justification.","an illusion.","spiritual justification.","aesthetic justification."],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11066,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. The question is about the meaning of life, which is often discussed in terms of whether life has inherent meaning (optimist's view) or lacks inherent meaning (pessimist's view).\nAnswer: A","question":"What are the two principal answers to whether life has any meaning for us?","choices":["the pessimist'sview and the optimist'sview","the existentialist's view and the nihilist's view","the deterministic view and the free will view","the materialistic view and the spiritual view","the empiricist's view and the rationalist's view","the external view and the internal view","the theistic view and the agnostics view","the monist's view and the dualist's view","the relativist's view and the absolutist's view","the religious view and the liberal view"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11067,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to Hobbes, the concept of \"good\" is subjective and is based on individual desires. To say something is good, in Hobbes's view, is to say that you desire it.\nAnswer: F","question":"In Hobbes’s view, to say something is good is to say that:","choices":["it aligns with natural law.","it benefits society as a whole.","it is conducive to human happiness.","most people ought to desire it.","it is universally desired.","you desire it.","most people desire it.","it is desired by powerful individuals.","it is morally right.","it leads to a state of peace."],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":11068,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the provided context on psychological egoism for help. The story about Abraham Lincoln saving the piglets is used to illustrate that even seemingly altruistic actions can be interpreted as ultimately self-interested, supporting the idea of psychological egoism. Lincoln claimed he saved the piglets to avoid feeling guilty, which aligns with psychological egoism's claim that all actions are motivated by self-interest.\n\nAnswer: J","question":"Feinberg claims that the story about Abraham Lincoln:","choices":["provides some evidence against psychological egoism.","supports the theory of psychological altruism.","is irrelevant to the discussion of psychological egoism.","supports the idea of ethical egoism.","proves the concept of psychological egoism.","actually involves a confusion between ethical egoism and psychological egoism.","provides no evidence for or against psychological egoism.","contradicts the concept of ethical egoism.","is a misinterpretation of psychological egoism.","provides some evidence for psychological egoism."],"correct":"A","answer":"J","score":0}
{"number":11069,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Elizabeth Anscombe, in her work on moral philosophy, emphasizes the importance of understanding concepts such as \"action\" and \"intention\" in developing an adequate moral psychology.\nAnswer: D","question":"Anscombe claims that an adequate moral psychology would include:","choices":["a detailed understanding of societal norms and expectations.","a comprehensive review of historical philosophical theories.","the influence of personal experiences on moral decisions.","analyses of concepts such as “action” and “intention.”","the integration of religious beliefs into moral decisions.","a thorough study of the subconscious mind.","all of the above.","an exploration of the concept of 'good' and 'evil'.","an answer to the mind-body problem.","an explanation of how free will is possible."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11070,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics for help. Derek Parfit, a philosopher known for his work on personal identity and ethics, distinguishes between agent-relative and agent-neutral reasons. Agent-relative reasons are those that apply specifically to the agent, often involving special obligations to particular individuals, such as one's own children.\n\nAnswer: A","question":"According to Parfit, the obligation to give priority to the welfare of one’s children is:","choices":["agent-relative.","agent-neutral.","absolute.","none of the above."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11071,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy and psychology for help. When people are hungry, they typically desire to eat food. Feinberg's claim aligns with this basic understanding of human needs and desires.\nAnswer: F","question":"Feinberg claims that when people are hungry, they typically desire:","choices":["neither a nor b.","to sleep.","pleasant gustatory sensations.","to cook.","to feel full.","to eat food.","to drink water.","to avoid food.","both a and b.","to exercise."],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":11072,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy and theology for help. Augustine's argument is that evil is a privation of good, meaning that evil cannot exist without good.\nAnswer: J","question":"Augustine claims that there can be no evil where there is no:","choices":["love.","truth.","justice.","faith.","greed.","peace.","hatred.","compassion.","happiness.","good."],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":11073,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Elizabeth Anscombe, in her critique of Butler, argues that our consciences are fallible and not always reliable guides to moral action.\nAnswer: F","question":"Anscombe criticizes Butler on the grounds that:","choices":["the notion of \"freedom\" is overly simplistic.","the concept of “pleasure” is unclear.","the notion of “legislating for oneself” is absurd.","the idea of \"moral truth\" is a contradiction.","we can't really distinguish between good and evil.","our consciences are fallible.","we really can derive an “ought” from an “is.”","the idea of moral obligations is incoherent.","the concept of \"identity\" is too subjective.","the concept of \"self\" is ill-defined."],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":11074,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. Soft determinism, also known as compatibilism, holds that determinism and free will are compatible. This means that while our actions are determined by prior causes, we can still act freely if our actions align with our desires and intentions. Therefore, soft determinism entails that the thesis of determinism is true but does not negate the possibility of free will.\n\nAnswer: E","question":"Soft determinism entails that _____.","choices":["our actions are completely predetermined","we have no control over our actions","the thesis of determinism is false","the thesis of free will is false","the thesis of determinism is true","there are no restraints on human behavior","human behavior is entirely random","our desires are predetermined, but our actions are not"],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11075,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy of mind for help. The theory that asserts mental states are identical to brain states is known as the identity theory.\nAnswer: C","question":"The theory that says mental states are nothing but brain states is known as _____.","choices":["monism","functionalism","identity theory","dualism","brain theory","logical behaviorism","eliminative materialism","physicalism","epiphenominalism","reductionism"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11076,"response":"Explanation: Let's analyze the given premises step by step to determine which proposition is an immediate (one-step) consequence.\n\n1. ~E ⊃ ~F\n2. G ⊃ F\n3. H ∨ ~E\n4. H ⊃ I\n5. ~I\n\nFrom premise 5 (~I), we know that I is false. Therefore, from premise 4 (H ⊃ I), H must also be false because if H were true, then I would have to be true, which contradicts premise 5.\n\nGiven that H is false, we can look for a proposition that directly follows from this information.\n\nThe only proposition that directly follows from H being false is:\nE. ~H\n\nAnswer: E","question":" Which of the following propositions is an immediate (one-step) consequence in PL of the given premises?\n~E ⊃ ~F\nG ⊃ F\nH ∨ ~E\nH ⊃ I\n~I","choices":["~H ⊃ I","G ⊃ ~F","H ⊃ ~E","I ⊃ H","~H","H ⊃ F","~G","F ⊃ ~E","E ⊃ F","F ⊃ G"],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11077,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"Some students work hard\" means that there exists at least one student who works hard. In predicate logic, this is expressed as the existence of an x such that x is a student (Sx) and x works hard (Wx). The correct translation is therefore (∃x)(Sx • Wx).\n\nAnswer: D","question":" Select the best translation into predicate logic: Some students work hard.","choices":["(∃x)(Sx ⊃ Wx)","(∃x)(Wx ⊃ Sx)","(∀x)(Sx • Wx)","(∃x)(Sx • Wx)","(∀x)(Sx ∨ Wx)","(∀x)(Wx • Sx)","(∃x)(Sx ∨ Wx)","(∃x)(Wx • Sx)","(∀x)(Sx ⊃ Wx)","(∃x)(Wx ∨ Sx)"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11078,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The premises are:\n\n1. (A ∨ B) ⊃ (C ∨ D)\n2. A ∨ B\n3. ~C\n\nFrom premise 2 (A ∨ B) and premise 1 ((A ∨ B) ⊃ (C ∨ D)), we can use modus ponens to derive C ∨ D.\n\nGiven premise 3 (~C), we know that C is false, so the only way for C ∨ D to be true is if D is true.\n\nTherefore, D must be true.\n\nAnswer: A","question":"Which of the following propositions is an immediate (one-step) consequence in PL of the given premises?\n(A ∨ B) ⊃ (C ∨ D)\nA ∨ B\n~C","choices":["C ∨ D","(A ∨ B) ⊃ ~D","(A ∨ B) ⊃ ~~C","D ∨ ~C","~~D","~A ∨ ~B","B ∨ ~A","~D ∨ C","~~C"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11079,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The predicate \"Mxyz\" means \"x moves to y from z\". To express \"Marco doesn't move from Spain to Italy,\" we need to negate the statement that Marco (m) moves to Italy (i) from Spain (s). Therefore, the correct translation would be \"~Mmis\".\n\nAnswer: D","question":" Select the best translation into predicate logic. Marco doesn't move from Spain to Italy. (i: Italy; m: Marco; s: Spain; Mxyz: x moves to y from z)","choices":["~Mis","Msi~","M~ism","~Mmis","M~mis","~Mmsi","M~si","M~msi","Mims~"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11080,"response":"Explanation: Let's break down the sentence step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help.\n\n1. \"England's not importing beef is a necessary condition for France's subsidizing agriculture\":\n   - A necessary condition means that if France subsidizes agriculture, then England is not importing beef.\n   - This can be symbolized as \\( F \\rightarrow \\neg E \\).\n\n2. \"China promotes human rights if and only if South Africa doesn't supply diamonds\":\n   - This is a biconditional statement.\n   - This can be symbolized as \\( C \\leftrightarrow \\neg S \\).\n\nCombining these two parts with an \"or\" (disjunction), we get:\n\\[ (F \\rightarrow \\neg E) \\lor (C \\leftrightarrow \\neg S) \\]\n\nNow, let's match this with the given options:\n\nA. (E ⊃ ~F) ∨ (S ≡ ~C)\nB. (F ⊃ E) ∨ (C ≡ ~S)\nC. (~E ⊃ ~F) ∨ (C ⊃ S)\nD. (~F ⊃ E) ∨ (~C ≡ S)\nE. (~F ⊃ ~E) ∨ (S ≡ ~C)\nF. (~E ⊃ F) ∨ (C ⊃ ~S)\nG. (F ⊃ ~E) ∨ (C ≡ ~S)\nH. (E ⊃ F) ∨ (C ≡ S)\nI. ~(F ⊃ E) ∨ (~S ⊃ C)\nJ. (F ⊃ E) ∨ (S ≡ C)\n\nThe correct option that matches our derived formula is:\n\\[ G: (F \\rightarrow \\neg E) \\lor (C \\leftrightarrow \\neg S) \\]\n\nAnswer: G","question":" Which of the given formulas of PL is the best symbolization of the following sentence?\nEither England's not importing beef is a necessary condition for France's subsidizing agriculture, or China promotes human rights if and only if South Africa doesn't supply diamonds.","choices":["(E ⊃ ~F) ∨ (S ≡ ~C)","(F ⊃ E) ∨ (C ≡ ~S)","(~E ⊃ ~F) ∨ (C ⊃ S)","(~F ⊃ E) ∨ (~C ≡ S)","(~F ⊃ ~E) ∨ (S ≡ ~C)","(~E ⊃ F) ∨ (C ⊃ ~S)","(F ⊃ ~E) ∨ (C ≡ ~S)","(E ⊃ F) ∨ (C ≡ S)","~(F ⊃ E) ∨ (~S ⊃ C)","(F ⊃ E) ∨ (S ≡ C)"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11081,"response":"Explanation: Let's construct the truth table step by step to determine the validity of the argument.\n\nThe argument is:\n1. \\(\\neg(M \\equiv \\neg N)\\)\n2. \\(M\\)\n3. \\(\\therefore N\\)\n\nFirst, let's define the equivalence (\\(\\equiv\\)) and negation (\\(\\neg\\)) operations:\n- \\(M \\equiv \\neg N\\) is true when \\(M\\) and \\(\\neg N\\) have the same truth value.\n- \\(\\neg(M \\equiv \\neg N)\\) is true when \\(M\\) and \\(\\neg N\\) have different truth values.\n\nNow, let's create the truth table:\n\n| M | N | \\(\\neg N\\) | \\(M \\equiv \\neg N\\) | \\(\\neg(M \\equiv \\neg N)\\) |\n|---|---|------------|---------------------|--------------------------|\n| T | T |     F      |         F           |            T             |\n| T | F |     T      |         T           |            F             |\n| F | T |     F      |         T           |            F             |\n| F | F |     T      |         F           |            T             |\n\nNext, we need to check if the premises lead to the conclusion:\n1. Premise 1: \\(\\neg(M \\equiv \\neg N)\\)\n2. Premise 2: \\(M\\)\n3. Conclusion: \\(N\\)\n\nLet's analyze each row where both premises are true and see if the conclusion holds:\n\n1. When \\(M = T\\) and \\(N = T\\):\n   - Premise 1: True\n   - Premise 2: True\n   - Conclusion: True (valid in this case)\n\n2. When \\(M = T\\) and \\(N = F\\):\n   - Premise 1: False\n   - Premise 2: True\n   - Conclusion: False (not applicable since premise 1 is false)\n\n3. When \\(M = F\\) and \\(N = T\\):\n   - Premise 1: False\n   - Premise 2: False (not applicable since premise 2 is false)\n   - Conclusion: True\n\n4. When \\(M = F\\) and \\(N = F\\):\n   - Premise 1: True\n   - Premise 2: False (not applicable since premise 2 is false)\n   - Conclusion: False\n\nFrom the truth table, we see that when both premises are true (\\(M = T, N = T\\)), the conclusion (\\(N = T\\)) holds true. Therefore, there are no counterexamples where both premises are true, but the conclusion is false.\n\nAnswer: E","question":"Construct a complete truth table for the following argument. Then, using the truth table, determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\n~(M ≡ ~N)\nM / N","choices":["Invalid. Counterexample when M is false and N is false","Invalid. Counterexample when M and N are true","Invalid. Counterexample when N is false and M is true","Invalid. Counterexample when N is true and M is false","Valid","Invalid. Counterexample when M is false and N is true","Invalid. Counterexample when both M and N are false","Invalid. Counterexample when M and N alternate in truth value","Invalid. Counterexample when M is true and N is false"],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11082,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to authoritative sources on climate ethics for help. The term \"intergenerational storm\" in the context of climate change refers to the ethical problem where the consequences of current actions (or inactions) regarding greenhouse gas emissions and climate policies will disproportionately affect future generations. This means that the negative effects of current carbon dioxide emissions will largely fall on future generations, who have no control over the actions taken today but will bear the brunt of their impacts.\n\nAnswer: I","question":" What is the \"intergenerational storm\" of climate change?","choices":["the problem of massive world overpopulation over generations.","the problem that the pace of climate change is too fast for future generations to adapt.","the problem of greenhouse gas emissions increasing over generations due to technological advancements.","the problem that current generations are not doing enough to prevent climate change, thus leaving future generations to deal with the consequences.","the problem that the compounding effects of greenhouse gas emissions require the current generation to, in effect, cooperate with future generations.","the problem of a lack of education among current generations about the long-term effects of climate change.","the problem that future generations may not be able to afford the costs of reversing the effects of climate change.","the problem that the negative effects of climate change disproportionately affect the younger generation.","the problem that the bad effects of current carbon dioxide emissions will fall largely on future generations.","the problem that countries are possibly biased toward the interests of the current generation, which largely benefits from carbon dioxide emissions."],"correct":"J","answer":"I","score":0}
{"number":11083,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on bioethics and the works of Leon Kass for help. According to Leon Kass, the notion of being \"better off dead\" is incoherent because dead people no longer exist and thus cannot benefit from choosing to die. This aligns with option E.\nAnswer: E","question":" Why, according to Gill, does Leon Kass think the notion of being \"better off dead\" is incoherent?","choices":["because Kass thinks that death is not a state of being and therefore cannot be evaluated.","because Kass believes in the sanctity of life and opposes euthanasia.","because Kass maintains that the concept of death is inherently negative and cannot be considered as \"better\".","because there has yet to be a satisfactory philosophical explanation of why death is bad.","because dead people no longer exist, and thus cannot benefit from choosing to die.","because Kass believes suffering in life can lead to personal growth, making death not a better option.","because some things (e.g., long-term torture) are worse than death.","because Kass believes that one cannot compare being alive and being dead.","because death is, by definition, undesirable.","because death cannot be considered as a better option when life is valuable."],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11084,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. In \"War and Massacre,\" Thomas Nagel discusses two kinds of moral considerations: consequentialist and absolutist.\nAnswer: D","question":" Thomas Nagel call the two kinds of moral considerations he discusses in \"War and Massacre\"","choices":["rights-based and duty-based","All of the above","consequentialist and dignity-based","utilitarian and absolutist","individualist and collectivist","forward-looking and backward-looking","deontological and teleological","virtue ethics and care ethics","consequentialist and deontological","egoistic and altruistic"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11085,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy and ethics for help. Papadaki critiques Kant's view of sexual objectification by arguing that it is not clear how sexual use sacrifices humanity.\nAnswer: J","question":" Against Kant's view of sexual objectification, Papadaki argues that","choices":["Papadaki actually agrees with Kant's view","Papadaki suggests that Kant's view of sexual objectification is too subjective.","Papadaki argues that sexual objectification is an outdated concept.","sexual objectification actually enhances humanity.","Papadaki believes that sexual objectification is a necessary part of human relationships.","Papadaki argues that Kant's view of sexual objectification is too moralistic.","According to Papadaki, Kant's views on sexual objectification are too black and white.","Papadaki holds that sexual objectification can be justified in certain contexts.","Kant is wrong to think about the wrong of sexual objectification in terms of humanity.","it is not clear how sexual use sacrifices humanity."],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":11086,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. According to John Rawls's theory, the original position is a hypothetical scenario where individuals design a just society without knowing their personal characteristics or social status. This is to ensure fairness and impartiality in the principles chosen. Therefore, occupants in the original position do not have knowledge of their talents, social status, or abilities.\n\nAnswer: D","question":" What information is available to occupants within Rawls's original position?","choices":["knowledge of how one is talented compared to others","knowledge of one's social status","knowledge of one's abilities, such as intelligence, strength, and so on","none of the above"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11087,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. Alan Dershowitz, a well-known legal scholar, has controversially argued that if torture is to be used in extreme cases (such as the \"ticking time bomb\" scenario), it should be regulated and authorized through a legal framework, such as a \"torture warrant.\" He has suggested that non-lethal methods like the use of a sterilized needle under the fingernails could be considered.\n\nAnswer: H","question":" Which of the following is a method of torture that Dershowitz believes is appropriate in those cases where torture is permissible?","choices":["prolonged sleep deprivation","forced ingestion of harmful substances","submerging the victim in water so he or she feels as if he or she is drowning","sensory deprivation","physical beatings","none of the above; Dershowitz thinks torture is wrong in all cases.","use of psychological manipulation techniques","having a sterilized needle shoved under the victim's fingernails","exposure to extreme cold or heat","electrocution at nonlethal levels"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":11088,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. John Rawls' theory of justice emphasizes the \"veil of ignorance\" and the \"difference principle,\" which suggests that social and economic inequalities should be arranged to benefit the least advantaged members of society. Stephen Macedo's argument aligns with this principle.\nAnswer: D","question":" In accordance with the theory of justice proposed by John Rawls, Stephen Macedo argues,\"We must consider the justifiability of policies from the standpoint of the _____ well-off among our fellow citizens.\"","choices":["most","educationally","financially","most disadvantaged","least","physically","historically","permanently","historically disadvantaged","mentally"],"correct":"E","answer":"D","score":0}
{"number":11089,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on physician-assisted suicide and related ethical debates for help. The argument in question suggests that the Oregon physician-assisted law wrongly assumes that doctors are qualified to judge whether a life is worth living. Gill's response would likely focus on clarifying the role of doctors under the law, emphasizing that their responsibility is to provide a professional medical opinion rather than to make a value judgment about the worth of a patient's life.\n\nAnswer: D","question":" Which of the following statements best describes Gill's response to the argument that the Oregon physician-assisted law falsely assumes that doctors are qualified to judge whether a life is worth living?","choices":["Doctors are normally required to make life-and-death decisions, and this is no exception.","The law is in line with the doctors' Hippocratic oath of doing no harm.","Doctors are as qualified as any other mature adult to decide whether a life is worth living.","The law doesn't require doctors to judge the worth of a life, but rather to provide a professional opinion on the patient's condition.","The argument is valid because doctors should not be the ones to decide whether a life is worth living.","The law is justified as doctors are inherently equipped to make such judgements due to their profession.","The law only requires doctors to make medical decisions about the patient's life expectancy and prognosis.","The argument is self-defeating because it was proposed by medical doctors.","The argument is irrelevant as the law is about patient autonomy and not about doctors' judgement on life's worth.","The law is flawed because it puts too much pressure on the doctors to make such decisions."],"correct":"G","answer":"D","score":0}
{"number":11090,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to Peter Carruthers, the justification for moral criticism of our actions towards animals derives from the bad qualities of character that our actions evince, rather than the direct moral standing of the animals themselves.\nAnswer: F","question":" In Carruther's view, the justification for moral criticism for things that we do (or don't to do) to an animal derives from","choices":["the animal's lifespan.","the animal's direct moral standing.","societal norms and expectations.","the animal's role in the ecosystem.","the animal's inability to defend itself.","the bad qualities of character that our actions evince.","the animal's intelligence level.","the animal's capacity for emotion."],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":11091,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. The ethic of willfulness values effort and the exercise of one's will over natural endowments. Given that B had to train harder to reach the same level of skill as A, B's achievements would be more highly valued under this ethic.\nAnswer: B","question":" Suppose two athletes, A and B, are equally skilled. Suppose also that A naturally inherited certain traits from her father that made playing the sport easier for her, and thus she didn't have to train as hard as B. According to the ethic of willfulness,","choices":["A is a better athlete.","B is a better athlete.","B doesn't count as an athlete because training precludes athleticism.","A and B are equally good athletes."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11092,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on cognitive distortions for help. Lukianoff and Haidt argue that trigger warnings can lead to patterns of thought similar to those identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety. One such pattern is \"fortune-telling,\" where individuals predict negative outcomes without evidence, leading to increased anxiety and avoidance behaviors.\n\nAnswer: A","question":" Lukianoff and Haidt argue that trigger warnings involve which kind of pathological thinking?","choices":["fortune-telling","blaming","dichotomous thinking","resentment"],"correct":"B","answer":"A","score":0}
{"number":11093,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics and philosophy for help. Valls' work on the ethics of war and terrorism often emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between combatants and noncombatants, particularly in defining terrorism as violence against noncombatants.\nAnswer: B","question":" In his discussion of discrimination in war, Valls suggests that","choices":["the concept of combatants and noncombatants is outdated and irrelevant.","\"terrorism\" should be defined as violence against noncombatants.","there is no difference between combatants and noncombatants.","the difference between combatants and noncombatants is largely ambiguous.","the difference between combatants and noncombatants is categorical and clear.","\"terrorism\" should be defined as indiscriminate violence.","there is a fine line between combatants and noncombatants.","\"terrorism\" should be defined as violence excluding war.","the difference between combatants and noncombatants is subjective and varies with perspective.","the difference between combatants and noncombatants is a matter of degree."],"correct":"J","answer":"B","score":0}
{"number":11094,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Thomas Nagel's discussion of absolutism emphasizes the inherent rights and moral principles that should not be violated, particularly focusing on the right to life.\nAnswer: I","question":" Nagel thinks that the core of the absolutist position is that","choices":["all actions are morally equivalent.","it is permissible to harm as a foreseen but unintended consequence of action.","the ends justify the means.","individuals should always act in their own best interest.","the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.","no action can be morally justified.","morality is subjective and varies from person to person.","the hostility should be directed at its true object.","human persons have a right to life.","each person should pursue his or her own happiness."],"correct":"H","answer":"I","score":0}
{"number":11095,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Sikhism for help. The ambrosial hours, known as \"Amrit Vela,\" are traditionally set aside for meditation and spiritual practice in Sikhism. These hours are typically between 3 a.m. and 6 a.m.\nAnswer: I","question":"What hours are set aside as the ambrosial hours for the Sikhs?","choices":["9–11 p.m.","10–12 p.m.","6–9 p.m.","1–4 a.m.","12–3 p.m.","3–6 p.m.","6–9 a.m.","7–10 a.m.","3–6 a.m.","5–7 a.m."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":11096,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the provided context on Sikhism for help. According to the information, the founder of Sikhism is Guru Nanak.\nAnswer: E","question":"Who is the founder of Sikhism?","choices":["Guru Arjan","Guru Angad","Guru Gobind Singh","Guru Ram Das","Guru Nanak","Guru Amar Das","Guru Kabir","Guru Hargobind","Guru Tegh Bahadur","Guru Har Rai"],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11097,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on historical figures for help. Ashoka, an Indian emperor of the Maurya Dynasty, is known for spreading the dharma of non-violence after his conversion to Buddhism following the Kalinga War.\nAnswer: A","question":" Which leader is known for spreading the dharma of non-violence?","choices":["Ashoka","Nelson Mandela","Martin Luther King Jr.","Ngo Dinh Diem","Adolf Hitler","Vladimir Putin","Mother Teresa","Siddhartha"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11098,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on East Asian religions for help. Religious traditions in China and Korea, such as Confucianism and Daoism, emphasize values like peace, harmony, and balance within society and nature.\nAnswer: H","question":"What has been a central focus of religious traditions in China and Korea?","choices":["Wealth and prosperity","Fear and obedience","Knowledge and education","Power and influence","Truth and love","Honor and loyalty","Justice and equality","Peace and harmony","Sacrifice and service"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":11099,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy of appeal to spite involves arguing against a position based on negative personal feelings toward the position rather than logical reasoning or evidence.\nAnswer: H","question":"Which of the following describes the fallacy of appeal to spite?","choices":["arguing that someone should do something because if he or she does it people will like him or her","arguing that a position is correct based on personal feelings rather than facts","saying someone shouldn't do something because if he or she does it people won't like him or her","arguing a position is incorrect because it is held by a person or group disliked by others","arguing someone should do something only because that person dislikes someone else","arguing a position is correct because it is held by a person or group disliked by others","arguing against a position based on the belief that it is generally unpopular","arguing against a position based only on negative personal feelings toward the position","arguing against a position solely based on the belief that it is old-fashioned or outdated","responding to an argument with an expression of derision instead of a counter argument"],"correct":"E","answer":"H","score":0}
{"number":11100,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. \"Ad crumenam\" is a Latin term that refers to an appeal to wealth, suggesting that a proposition is true because the person making it is wealthy or that wealth itself is a sign of correctness. This type of argument is not directly listed among the common fallacies provided, but it most closely aligns with the idea of a false sign, where wealth is incorrectly taken as evidence of truth.\n\nAnswer: C","question":"\" _Ad crumenam_ \" is a specific kind of","choices":["Slippery Slope","Hasty Conclusion","False sign","False analogy","Bandwagon Fallacy","Circular Reasoning","Hasty Generalization","Straw Man Fallacy","Red Herring"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11101,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. In a hypothetical syllogism, if the minor premise affirms the antecedent (modus ponens), then the conclusion must affirm the consequent.\nAnswer: B","question":"In a hypothetical syllogism, when the minor premise affirms the antecedent","choices":["no valid conclusion can be drawn","the conclusion must affirm the consequent","the conclusion must deny the consequent","the conclusion must deny the antecedent"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11102,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The argument presented uses the term \"discrimination\" in two different senses: one referring to personal preferences and choices (such as food, music, colors, and friends) and the other referring to unfair treatment based on characteristics such as race, gender, or religion. This is a classic example of the fallacy of equivocation, where a word is used with multiple meanings in an argument, leading to a misleading conclusion.\n\nAnswer: B","question":"It's silly to pass laws against discrimination, since it is obvious that we can't live without it. We discriminate between pleasant and unpleasant tastes in selecting our food, between pleasant and unpleasant sounds in selecting our music, between harmonious and unharmonious colors in decorating our homes, between interesting and uninteresting people in choosing our friends, and so on. We can't live without discriminating.","choices":["Prejudicial Language","Equivocation","Inconsistency","Straw Man"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11104,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The argument \"All things that are spoiled are inedible. Timothy is spoiled. So, Timothy is inedible.\" relies on the ambiguity of the word \"spoiled.\" In the first premise, \"spoiled\" refers to food that has gone bad, while in the second premise, it refers to a person's behavior. This is an example of equivocation, where a word is used with different meanings in different parts of the argument.\n\nAnswer: A","question":"All things that are spoiled are inedible. Timothy is spoiled. So, Timothy is inedible.","choices":["Equivocation","Attacking the Person (ad hominem)","Fallacy of Division","Questionable Cause"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11105,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy described involves supporting only one part of a two-part proposition and then claiming that the entire proposition has been supported. This is known as the \"Complex Proposition\" fallacy, where an argument is made for a complex proposition but only one part is actually supported.\n\nAnswer: B","question":"Which fallacy happens when someone argues in favor of a two part proposition, only supports one part of the proposition, then asserts that the entire proposition has been supported.","choices":["a priori","Complex proposition","Extension","Appeal to ignorance"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11106,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. \"Ad lazarum\" is a specific kind of informal fallacy where an argument appeals to pity or compassion, often involving the poor or unfortunate. It is not directly related to any of the other specific fallacies listed.\n\nAnswer: J","question":"\" _Ad lazarum_ \" is a specific kind of","choices":["Fallacy of composition","Complex cause","Red herring","False sign","Hasty generalization","Anecdotal evidence","False criteria","Slippery slope argument","Straw man argument","Informal fallacy"],"correct":"D","answer":"J","score":0}
{"number":11107,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Thomas Nagel, a prominent philosopher, argues that skeptical arguments often grow from the consistent application of ordinary standards. This means that skepticism arises when everyday standards of evidence and justification are applied rigorously and consistently, leading to doubt about what we can know.\n\nAnswer: H","question":"Nagel claims that most skeptical arguments:","choices":["result from misinterpretation of philosophical concepts.","are based on empirical evidence.","stem from a misunderstanding of skepticism itself.","are rooted in biased perspectives.","are the product of overthinking.","are the result of applying arbitrarily stringent standards.","are a result of a lack of understanding of ordinary standards.","grow from the consistent application of ordinary standards.","are based on linguistic confusions.","are logically self-refuting."],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":11108,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Charles L. Stevenson, a prominent figure in emotivism, aimed to clarify ethical questions and the meaning of ethical terms rather than provide an account of what makes actions right or establish intrinsic goods.\nAnswer: D","question":"Stevenson’s primary aim in this paper is to:","choices":["provide an account of what makes right actions right.","establish which things are good in themselves.","develop a theory of good moral character.","make ethical questions clear."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11109,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to John Stuart Mill, to determine whether one pleasure is more valuable than another, we must determine which pleasure most experienced people prefer. Mill argues that the preferences of those who have experienced both types of pleasure are the best guide to their relative value.\n\nAnswer: A","question":"According to Mill, to determine whether one pleasure is more valuable than another, we must _____.","choices":["determine which pleasure most experienced people prefer","consult science","consult religious leaders","determine which one is objectively most pleasurable","measure the intensity of each pleasure","consider which pleasure is most easily attainable","consult our personal preferences","determine which pleasure is most universally preferred","determine which pleasure lasts the longest","consult philosophers of the past"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11110,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to Derek Parfit, both Taurek and Lewis assume that for there to be a \"sum of pain,\" it must be all felt by a single person. This assumption is central to their discussions about the aggregation of pain and suffering.\n\nAnswer: E","question":"According to Parfit, both Taurek and Lewis assume that for there to be a “sum of pain,” it must be:","choices":["all be avoidable.","only felt by multiple people at different times.","all be experienced in the same way.","all be of the same intensity.","all felt by a single person.","all be caused by a single source.","all be caused by multiple sources.","all be caused by a single event.","all felt at a single time.","all of the above."],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11111,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Charles L. Stevenson, a prominent figure in emotivism, claims that the primary use of ethical judgments is to influence the interests and attitudes of others.\nAnswer: D","question":"Stevenson claims that the primary use of ethical judgments is to:","choices":["demonstrate superior knowledge.","provide a basis for legislation.","evaluate the morality of others.","influence the interests of others.","state facts.","establish universal moral laws.","describe one’s own approval of things.","express personal beliefs.","none of the above.","manipulate the emotions of others."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11114,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on moral philosophy for help. The Ideal Moral Code theory suggests that one should follow the rules that would be ideal if everyone complied with them perfectly.\nAnswer: B","question":"According to the Ideal Moral Code theory, one is obligated to do what the ideal moral rules would require:","choices":["in a world where moral rules are constantly changing.","in a world in which everyone complied with those rules perfectly.","in an ideal institutional setting.","in a world where every individual creates their own rules.","in a setting where institutions are corrupted.","in a setting devoid of institutions.","in a world where everyone complies with those rules imperfectly.","in one’s actual institutional setting.","in a world where moral rules are determined by majority vote.","in a hypothetical society with perfect moral rules."],"correct":"H","answer":"B","score":0}
{"number":11115,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Socrates for help. According to Socrates, the value or quality of one's life depends on understanding the principles of, or basic rationale for human existence. He famously stated that \"the unexamined life is not worth living,\" which implies that virtue and knowledge are deeply connected. Acting virtuously means acting in a way that is informed about what one is doing and why.\nAnswer: E","question":"According to Socrates, the value or quality of one's life depends on understanding the principles of, or basic rationale for human existence.  Without such knowledge (he suggests) life lacks virtue, because:","choices":["understanding existence philosophically leads to personal satisfaction.","one's life lacks virtue if they do not contribute to society.","ignorance is a virtue in itself, as it leads to humility.","philosophical understanding is not necessary as long as one is happy.","acting virtuously means acting in way that is informed about what one is doing and why.","virtue is irrelevant to the quality of life.","someone who does not understand existence philosophically could never do anything right.","not only is virtue knowledge but also the unexamined life is not worth living.","the value of life is determined by one's personal wealth and status.","to have the power or ability to do anything at all requires that we know what we are doing."],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11116,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. David Hume is known for his view that reason is \"cool and disengaged\" and serves the passions rather than being the primary driver of human actions or moral decisions. He famously argued that reason is the \"slave of the passions\" and cannot motivate action on its own.\n\nAnswer: G","question":"Hume describes reason as:","choices":["all of the above.","synonymous with logic and rationality.","the primary cause of human suffering.","the source of all moral actions.","the root of all evil.","the first spring or impulse to desire.","cool and disengaged.","the driving force behind all human behaviors.","the catalyst for emotional reactions.","irrelevant to decision making."],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11117,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"Everybody loves Raymond, or not\" can be interpreted as a tautology, meaning that either the proposition \"L\" (Everybody loves Raymond) is true or its negation \"~L\" (not everybody loves Raymond) is true. This is represented in propositional logic as \"L ∨ ~L\".\nAnswer: C","question":" Which of the given formulas of PL is the best symbolization of the following sentence?\nEverybody loves Raymond, or not.","choices":["L → ~L","~L • L","L ∨ ~L","L","L ∧ L","L • ~L","~L → L","~L ∧ ~L","~L"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11118,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. To determine the validity of the argument using an indirect truth table, we assume the conclusion is false and see if this leads to a contradiction with the premises.\n\n1. The argument is:\n   - Premise 1: \\( E \\supset (F \\vee \\neg G) \\)\n   - Premise 2: \\( F \\supset (\\neg E \\vee \\neg G) \\)\n   - Conclusion: \\( \\neg (E \\equiv F) \\)\n\n2. Assume the conclusion is false:\n   - \\( E \\equiv F \\) (which means \\( E \\) and \\( F \\) have the same truth value)\n\n3. Let's analyze each counterexample option:\n\n   **Option A**: Invalid. Counterexample when \\( E \\) is true, \\( F \\) is false, and \\( G \\) is true.\n   - If \\( E = T, F = F, G = T \\):\n     - Premise 1: \\( T \\supset (F \\vee \\neg T) = T \\supset F = F\\), which is false.\n     - Premise 2: \\( F = F\\), so it's true regardless of other values.\n     - Conclusion: \\( E = T, F = F\\), so it's false.\n     This does not lead to a contradiction.\n\n   **Option B**: Valid.\n   - This would mean no counterexamples exist.\n\n   **Option C**: Invalid. Counterexample when \\( E \\) and \\( G \\) are true and \\( F \\) is false.\n   - If \\( E = T, F = F, G = T\\):\n     - Premise 1: Same as Option A.\n     - Premise 2: Same as Option A.\n     This does not lead to a contradiction.\n\n   **Option D**: Valid. No counterexample found.\n   - This would mean no counterexamples exist.\n\n   **Option E**: Invalid. Counterexample when \\( E \\) is false, \\( F \\) is true, and \\( G \\) is false.\n   - If \\( E = F, F = T, G = F\\):\n     - Premise 1: Same as Option A.\n     - Premise 2: Same as Option A.\n     This does not lead to a contradiction.\n\n   **Option F**: Invalid. Counterexample when \\( F\\) and \\( G\\) are true and \\( E\\) is false.\n   - If \\(E=F,F=T,G=T\\):\n     - Premise 1: Same as Option A.\n     - Premise 2: Same as Option A.\n     This does not lead to a contradiction.\n\n   **Option G**: Invalid. Counterexample when \\(E\\) and \\(F\\) are true and \\(G\\) is false.\n    - If\\(E=T,F=T,G=F\\):\n      -Premise 1:\\(T superset(T vee negF)=T supersetT=T), which is true\n      -Premise 2:\\(T superset(negT vee negF)=T superset negT=F), which is false\n      Conclusion:\\(E=T,F=T), so it’s true\n      This leads to a contradiction\n\nTherefore, the correct answer must be option G\n\nAnswer:G","question":"Use indirect truth tables to determine whether the following argument is valid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\nE ⊃ (F ∨ ~G)\nF ⊃ (~E ∨ ~G) / ~(E ≡ F)","choices":["Invalid. Counterexample when E is true, F is false and G is true","Valid","Invalid. Counterexample when E and G are true and F is false","Valid. No counterexample found","Invalid. Counterexample when E is false, F is true and G is false","Invalid. Counterexample when F and G are true and E is false","Invalid. Counterexample when E and F are true and G is false"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11119,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. In a conditional proposition, the antecedent is the condition that must be met for the consequent to occur. The given proposition is \"The university raises tuition if, and only if, both the governor approves of it and the board of trustees recommends it.\" Here, the condition (antecedent) is \"both the governor approves of it and the board of trustees recommends it.\"\n\nAnswer: D","question":"Identify the antecedent of the following conditional proposition: The university raises tuition if, and only if, both the governor approves of it and the board of trustees recommends it.","choices":["The university raises tuition.","The governor approves of it.","The board of trustees recommends it.","None of the above"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11120,"response":"Explanation: Let's analyze the propositions step by step using an indirect truth table to determine consistency.\n\n1. \\( D \\equiv E \\): This means \\( D \\) and \\( E \\) have the same truth value.\n2. \\( F \\vee D \\): This means at least one of \\( F \\) or \\( D \\) is true.\n3. \\( \\neg E \\cdot \\neg F \\): This means both \\( E \\) and \\( F \\) are false.\n\nGiven \\( D \\equiv E \\), if \\( E \\) is false, then \\( D \\) must also be false. \n\nNow, let's check the consistency:\n- If \\( E = 0 \\), then \\( D = 0 \\).\n- Given \\( F \\vee D = 1\\), since \\( D = 0\\), it must be that \\( F = 1\\).\n\nHowever, this contradicts the third proposition (\\( \\neg E \\cdot \\neg F\\)), which requires both \\( E = 0\\) and \\( F = 0\\).\n\nTherefore, the set of propositions is inconsistent.\n\nAnswer: B","question":" Use indirect truth tables to determine whether each set of propositions is consistent. If the set is consistent, choose an option with a consistent valuation. (There may be other consistent valuations.)\nD ≡ E\nF ∨ D\n~E · ~F","choices":["Consistent. Consistent valuation when D and E are true and F is true","Inconsistent","Consistent. Consistent valuation when D is true, E and F are false","Consistent. Consistent valuation when E is true, D and F are false","Consistent. Consistent valuation when D and E are true and F is false","Consistent. Consistent valuation when D, E are false and F is true","Consistent. Consistent valuation when D and F are true and E is false","Consistent. Consistent valuation when D, E, and F are true","Consistent. Consistent valuation when F is true, D and E are false","Consistent. Consistent valuation when D, E and F are false"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11121,"response":"Explanation: Let's analyze the premises and see what immediate consequences can be derived.\n\n1. \\( A \\supset (B \\cdot C) \\)\n2. \\( \\neg (B \\cdot C) \\)\n3. \\( A \\lor (D \\lor B) \\)\n\nFrom premise 2, we know that \\( B \\cdot C \\) is false. This means either \\( B \\) is false, or \\( C \\) is false, or both are false.\n\nFrom premise 1, if \\( A \\) were true, then \\( B \\cdot C \\) would have to be true because of the implication. But since we know from premise 2 that \\( B \\cdot C \\) is false, \\( A \\) must be false to avoid a contradiction.\n\nTherefore, the immediate consequence is:\nAnswer: C","question":" Which of the following propositions is an immediate (one-step) consequence in PL of the given premises?\nA ⊃ (B • C)\n~(B • C)\nA ∨ (D ∨ B)","choices":["~(B • C)","D ∨ B","~A","D","A","~D","B","B • C","~B","~(A ∨ D)"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11122,"response":"Explanation: Let's use indirect truth tables to determine the consistency of the given set of propositions. We need to find a valuation where all the propositions are true simultaneously.\n\n1. \\((T ⊃ U) ⊃ (W ⊃ U)\\)\n2. \\(T ⊃ \\sim(U ⊃ X)\\)\n3. \\((T ⊃ \\sim X) ⊃ W\\)\n\nLet's assume each proposition is true and see if we can find a consistent valuation:\n\n1. \\((T ⊃ U) ⊃ (W ⊃ U)\\) is true.\n2. \\(T ⊃ \\sim(U ⊃ X)\\) is true.\n3. \\((T ⊃ \\sim X) ⊃ W\\) is true.\n\nTo satisfy these conditions, let's try different valuations:\n\n### Valuation: T = True, U = True, W = False, X = True\n\n1. \\(T = True\\), \\(U = True\\), \\(W = False\\), \\(X = True\\)\n\n   - For \\((T ⊃ U) ⊃ (W ⊃ U)\\):\n     - \\(T ⊃ U\\) is \\(True\\).\n     - \\(W ⊃ U\\) is \\(True\\).\n     - Therefore, \\((True) ⊃ (True)\\) is \\(True\\).\n\n   - For \\(T ⊃ \\sim(U ⊃ X)\\):\n     - \\(U ⊃ X\\) is \\(True\\).\n     - \\(\\sim(True)\\) is \\(False\\).\n     - Therefore, \\(T ⊃ False\\) must be \\(False\\), but since T is True, this makes the second proposition false.\n\n### Valuation: T = False, U = True, W = True, X = True\n\n1. \\(T = False\\), \\(U = True\\), \\(W = True\\), \\(X = True\\)\n\n   - For \\((T ⊃ U) ⊃ (W ⊃ U)\\):\n     - \\(T ⊃ U\\) is \\(True\\).\n     - \\(W ⊃ U\\) is \\(True\\).\n     - Therefore, \\((True) ⊃ (True)\\) is \\(True\\).\n\n   - For \\(T ⊃ \\sim(U ⊃ X)\\):\n     - Since T is False, this proposition is automatically true regardless of the other values.\n\n   - For \\((T ⊂ ~X)⊂ W:\n      Since T is False, this proposition automatically becomes true regardless of other values.\n\nThis valuation works for all three propositions being true simultaneously.\n\nAnswer: D","question":" Use indirect truth tables to determine whether each set of propositions is consistent. If the set is consistent, choose an option with a consistent valuation. (There may be other consistent valuations.)\n(T ⊃ U) ⊃ (W ⊃ U)\nT ⊃ ~(U ⊃ X)\n(T ⊃ ~X) ⊃ W","choices":["Inconsistent. Inconsistent valuation when T, U, W and X are all false","Inconsistent. Inconsistent valuation when T, U, W and X are all true","Consistent. Consistent valuation when T, U and X are true and W is false","Consistent. Consistent valuation when U, W, and X are true and T is false","Inconsistent"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11123,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The formula given is \"~C ∨ D\". This can be read as \"not C or D\". In natural language, this translates to \"If Emily doesn't stop working, then Russell makes dinner.\"\n\nAnswer: I","question":" Use the following key to translate the given formula of PL to natural, English sentences.\nA: Marina reads a Percy Jackson book.\nB: Izzy plays Minecraft.\nC: Emily stops working.\nD: Russell makes dinner.\nE: Ashleigh stops by.\n~C ∨ D","choices":["Emily doesn't stop working unless Russell makes dinner.","If Emily doesn't stop working then Russell makes dinner.","Emily stops working if Russell doesn't make dinner.","Russell doesn't make dinner if Emily stops working.","If Emily stops working then Russell doesn't make dinner.","If Russell makes dinner then Emily doesn't stop working.","Russell doesn't make dinner unless Emily stops working.","Emily stops working unless Russell doesn't make dinner.","Russell makes dinner if Emily doesn't stop working."],"correct":"A","answer":"I","score":0}
{"number":11124,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"Sheena is a punk rocker\" can be translated into predicate logic by letting \"s\" represent Sheena and \"P\" represent the predicate \"is a punk rocker.\" Therefore, the best translation would be \"Ps,\" where \"P\" is the predicate and \"s\" is the subject.\nAnswer: G","question":"Select the best translation into predicate logic: Sheena is a punk rocker.","choices":["xPs","SPx","sP","Pxs","Spx","Sx","Ps","xSP","xS","PxS"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11125,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"Leroy is bad only if DJ Khaled shouts his name\" can be translated into predicate logic as \"Bl ⊃ Sk\", where \"Bl\" stands for \"Leroy is bad\" and \"Sk\" stands for \"DJ Khaled shouts his name\". The phrase \"only if\" indicates a conditional relationship where the antecedent is \"Leroy is bad\" and the consequent is \"DJ Khaled shouts his name\".\n\nAnswer: D","question":"Select the best translation into predicate logic: Leroy is bad only if DJ Khaled shouts his name.","choices":["Sy ≡ Bl","Sy ⊃ Bl","Bx ⊃ Sy","Bl ⊃ Sk","Bx ≡ Sy","Sk ⊃ By","Sk ⊃ Bx","Sk ≡ Bl","By ≡ Sk","Bl ≡ Sk"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11126,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The statement \"Alexis is greeted by Ben\" means that Ben is the one performing the action of greeting, and Alexis is the one being greeted. In predicate logic, this can be represented as \"Ben greets Alexis,\" which translates to Gba (where Gxy means x greets y, with x being the subject and y being the object).\n\nAnswer: E","question":"Select the best translation into predicate logic. Alexis is greeted by Ben. (a: Alexis; b: Ben; Gxy: x greets y)","choices":["G(ab)","aGb","aGba","~Gba","Gba","Gaa","Gab","Gb~a","Gbb","Ga/b"],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11127,"response":"Explanation: Let's break down the sentence and translate it into predicate logic step by step.\n\n1. \"England's importing beef is a necessary condition for France's subsidizing agriculture\":\n   - A necessary condition means that if France subsidizes agriculture, then England must import beef.\n   - This can be written as \\( F \\supset E \\).\n\n2. \"China promotes human rights given that South Africa doesn't supply diamonds\":\n   - This means if South Africa doesn't supply diamonds, then China promotes human rights.\n   - This can be written as \\( \\sim S \\supset C \\).\n\nCombining these two parts with an \"or\" (disjunction), we get:\n\\[ (F \\supset E) \\lor (\\sim S \\supset C) \\]\n\nThe correct symbolization matches option A.\nAnswer: A","question":" Which of the given formulas of PL is the best symbolization of the following sentence?\nEither England's importing beef is a necessary condition for France's subsidizing agriculture or China promotes human rights given that South Africa doesn't supply diamonds.","choices":["(F ⊃ E) ∨ (~S ⊃ C)","(E ≡ F) ∨ (C ⊃ ~S)","(F ≡ E) ∨ (S ≡ ~C)","(F ⊃ E) ∨ (S ≡ C)","(E ⊃ F) ∨ (S ⊃~C)","(F ⊃ E) ∨ (~S ≡ C)","(E ⊃ F) ∨ (C ⊃ S)","(E ⊃ F) ∨ (~C ⊃ S)","(E ⊃ F) ∨ (~S ≡ ~C)","(E ⊃ F) ∨ (C ≡ ~S)"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11128,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. According to John Stuart Mill in \"On Liberty,\" censoring speech that is possibly true is problematic because it assumes the infallibility of those who censor it. Mill argues that no one knows the absolute truth, and therefore, suppressing an idea might be suppressing the truth itself.\n\nAnswer: I","question":" According to Mill, censoring speech that is possibly true","choices":["is a good way to maintain public order.","is a risk worth taking of the speech is dangerous enough.","diminishes intellectual growth.","is acceptable if the speech is offensive.","is a violation of the speaker's freedom of expression.","is a fundamental right of society.","fails a prima facie duty of honesty.","violates human dignity.","is tantamount to asserting that you are infallible.","is necessary to maintain societal harmony."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":11129,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. Nathanson is known for his arguments against the death penalty, emphasizing the respect for human dignity and the moral message that abolishing the death penalty sends. One of his key points is that by abolishing the death penalty, we affirm our commitment to respecting the dignity of human life.\n\nAnswer: I","question":" One message that Nathanson argues we can send by abolishing the death penalty is that","choices":["we believe in the possibility of redemption and change.","there are some penalties worse than death.","we are unable to administer justice effectively.","there is no punishment that is proportional to murder.","there is always a possibility of judicial errors.","we are lenient towards heinous crimes.","we should prioritize rehabilitation over punishment.","none of the above","we respect the dignity of human life.","we have a flawed criminal justice system."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":11130,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy and ethics for help. The Confucian model emphasizes voluntary compliance based on mutual respect and understanding, rather than coercion. This is because Confucianism places a strong emphasis on moral education, social harmony, and the cultivation of virtues, believing that individuals can be guided to act correctly through these means.\n\nAnswer: C","question":" In contrast to Garrett Hardin's approach, the Confucian model rejects coercion because","choices":["it views coercion as a violation of human rights","it believes in the power of persuasion over coercion","the Confucian model believes in voluntary compliance based on mutual respect and understanding.","it affirms the autonomy of individuals apart from others.","The Confucian model actually accepts coercion.","the costs of eliminating a collective action problem are not irrelevant to its solution","coercion is seen as a last resort, only to be used in extreme circumstances","the Confucian model prioritizes collective action over individual action","it cannot lead to real social change, which involves changes of mind as well as action","it believes in the intrinsic goodness and perfectibility of human beings"],"correct":"D","answer":"C","score":0}
{"number":11132,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy and ethics for help. Thomas Pogge argues that wealthy countries have stringent negative duties towards the global poor because they have contributed to and benefited from a global order that harms the poor.\nAnswer: G","question":" Since we who live in wealthy countries have directly caused harm, Pogge argues that we have very stringent","choices":["libertarian duties towards the global poor","positive duties towards the global poor","duty-free towards the global poor","liberal duties towards the global poor","consequentialist duties towards the global poor","conservative duties towards the global poor","negative dutiestowards the global poor","utilitarian duties towards the global poor","human rights duties towards the global poor","egalitarian duties towards the global poor."],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11133,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to authoritative sources on drug policy and research for help. De Marneffe's argument about increased availability leading to increased use is supported by specific examples of drug use patterns in relation to their availability. Among the given options, the most direct evidence supporting this claim includes:\n\nA. Marijuana use increased in states where it was legalized.\nB. Methamphetamine use increased during periods when it was readily available.\nD. Heroin use was much higher among military personnel in Vietnam than it was among veterans who returned to the United States.\n\nThese examples directly illustrate the correlation between availability and usage rates.\n\nAnswer: F","question":" Which of the following is evidence that de Marneffe cites in support of the claim that increased availability of a drug leads to increased use of that drug?","choices":["Marijuana use increased in states where it was legalized.","Methamphetamine use increased during periods when it was readily available.","The percentage of physicians who use psychoactive drugs is much higher than the general population.","Heroin use was much higher among military personnel in Vietnam than it was among veterans who returned to the United States.","The number of smokers increased after the introduction of e-cigarettes.","all of the above","Cocaine use decreased in areas where it was strictly prohibited.","Alcohol abuse declines when the law restricts the times it can be legally sold.","The use of prescription drugs is higher in countries where they are easily accessible.","The consumption of caffeine increased with the rise of coffee shops."],"correct":"D","answer":"F","score":0}
{"number":11134,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. According to Thomas Aquinas's version of natural law theory, there are several basic intrinsic goods that are fundamental to human flourishing. These include human life, human procreation, and human sociability, among others. Therefore, all the options listed (human life, human procreation, and human sociability) are considered basic intrinsic goods according to Aquinas.\n\nAnswer: D","question":" Which of the following is a basic intrinsic good, according to Aquinas's version of natural law theory?","choices":["human life","human procreation","human sociability","all of the above"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11135,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Thomas Nagel, in his discussions on moral absolutism, argues that certain actions, such as murder, are inherently wrong and should be avoided at all costs, regardless of the consequences.\nAnswer: I","question":" Nagel clarifies that absolutism is the view that we should","choices":["only sometimes prevent murder","never prevent murder","only sometimes avoid murder","always encourage murder","consider murder as a last resort","encourage murder under certain circumstances","only sometimes encourage murder","avoid murder except in self-defense situations","avoid murder at all costs"],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":11136,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. McGregor's view on rights typically emphasizes the extent of our individual freedom. Rights are seen as defining what individuals are free to do without interference.\n\nAnswer: J","question":" On McGregor's view, our rights carve out","choices":["the boundaries of our moral obligations.","the domain of our personal identity.","all of the above.","what we are free to do.","the responsibilities we have towards others.","the scope of our professional roles.","the domain of our community.","none of the above.","the limits of our legal obligations.","the extent of our individual freedom."],"correct":"B","answer":"J","score":0}
{"number":11137,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Chinese philosophy for help. Naturalists who concentrated on natural elements and processes are most closely associated with the Yin-Yang School, which focused on the dualistic nature of reality and the balance between opposing forces.\nAnswer: I","question":" Naturalists who concentrated on natural elements and processes are associated with which of the following?","choices":["Mengzi","Zoroastrianism","Zen Buddhism","Shintoism","Vedic Philosophy","Humanistic Buddhism","Confucianism","Legalism","Yin-Yang School","Daoism"],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":11138,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the provided context on Jain philosophy for help. According to Jaina traditions, the term \"ajiva\" refers to \"non-living substance,\" as opposed to \"jiva,\" which means \"soul\" or \"living matter.\"\nAnswer: B","question":"According to Jaina traditions, what does the term ajiva mean?","choices":["Sound","Non-living","Non-matter","Non-soul","Consciousness","Non-energy","Energy","Life","Matter","Soul"],"correct":"D","answer":"B","score":0}
{"number":11139,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Jainism for help. In Jainism, the sacred literature is believed to have originated with the first Tirthankara, Rsabha (also known as Rishabhanatha).\nAnswer: H","question":"Sacred literature originated with which of the following jina?","choices":["Sri Lakshmi","Brahma","Nanak","Vishnu","Shiva","Indra","Buddha","Rsabha","Mahavira","Krishna"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":11140,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Jewish texts for help. The Oral Torah, when written down, primarily consists of the Mishnah and the Gemara, which together form the Talmud.\nAnswer: C","question":"The Oral Torah, in its written form, is known as what?","choices":["Mishnah","Tanakh","Talmud","Pentateuch","Gemara","Zohar","Ketuvim","Midrash","Torah Shebichtav","Nevi'im"],"correct":"A","answer":"C","score":0}
{"number":11141,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. In a conditional syllogism, the form is typically \"If P, then Q\" (P ⊃ Q). If the minor premise denies the antecedent (¬P), this is known as \"denying the antecedent.\" This form of argument does not lead to a valid conclusion in classical logic because it does not provide information about the truth value of the consequent (Q). Therefore, no valid conclusion can be drawn from denying the antecedent.\n\nAnswer: A","question":"In a conditional syllogism, when the minor premise denies the antecedent","choices":["no valid conclusion can be drawn","the conclusion must affirm the antecedent","the conclusion must be a tautology","the conclusion must affirm the consequent","the conclusion must be an inverse statement","the conclusion must be a conditional statement","the conclusion must be a converse statement","the conclusion must deny the consequent","the conclusion must be a contradiction","the conclusion must deny the antecedent"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11142,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy of composition occurs when one infers that something true of the parts must be true of the whole. In this case, Mill argues that because each person's happiness is a good to that person, the general happiness is a good to the aggregate of all persons. This reasoning exemplifies the fallacy of composition.\nAnswer: A","question":"John Stuart Mill: Each person's happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons.","choices":["Fallacy of Composition","Fallacy of Division","Gambler's Fallacy","Equivocation"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11143,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy in question involves asserting that a claim is true because unidentified experts accept it, which is an appeal to anonymous authority.\nAnswer: D","question":"When a claim is supported only by asserting that unidentified experts accept the claim the arguer has committed which of the following fallacies?","choices":["snob appeal","appeal to popularity","post hoc ergo propter hoc","appeal to anonymous authority","straw man","ad vericundiam","false dichotomy","slippery slope","ad hominem","appeal to tradition"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11144,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy described is known as the \"Accident\" fallacy, which occurs when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover.\nAnswer: C","question":"Which of the following fallacies happens when someone concludes that a legitimate generalization necessarily applies to a particular case?","choices":["False dilemma","Circular reasoning","Accident","Bifurcation"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11145,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on John Stuart Mill and utilitarianism for help. Mill addresses various objections to utilitarianism in his work, and one of the strongest objections he discusses is related to the concept of justice. Critics argue that utilitarianism can lead to actions that are unjust, even if they maximize overall happiness.\n\nAnswer: A","question":"Mill claims that one of the strongest objections to utilitarianism is drawn from the idea of:","choices":["justice.","supererogation.","honesty.","morality.","virtue.","integrity.","duty.","pleasure.","altruism.","ethics."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11146,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics for help. Peter Singer, in his work on effective altruism and global poverty, argues that the traditional distinction between duty and charity is problematic. He claims that what we typically consider acts of charity should be seen as moral duties.\nAnswer: C","question":"Singer claims that his argument upsets the traditional distinction between:","choices":["fairness and bias.","ethical and unethical.","duty and charity.","positive and negative rights.","freedom and restriction.","obligation and option.","justice and injustice.","moral and amoral.","egoism and altruism.","rights and privileges."],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11147,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to David Hume, justice is an artificial virtue that derives its value from its utility to society. He argues that the rules of justice are established through social conventions because they are beneficial and necessary for social cooperation and stability.\n\nAnswer: C","question":"According to Hume, justice:","choices":["has no value.","has value in part because it is useful to society.","has value solely because it is useful to society.","has value solely because it is useful to the agent."],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11148,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to Immanuel Kant, the moral worth of an action is determined by the maxim (principle) that the agent acts upon, rather than the consequences or the character of the agent.\nAnswer: C","question":"According to Kant, the moral worth of an action depends on:","choices":["the moral character of the agent who performs it.","the consequences of the action.","the maxim that is acted on.","all of the above."],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11149,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. Augustine, in his works, particularly in \"Against the Academicians,\" argues against Academic skepticism, which claims that humans cannot attain certain knowledge. Augustine contends that this form of skepticism is false and can be refuted by demonstrating that certain truths are self-evident and undeniable, such as the existence of the self.\n\nAnswer: C","question":"Augustine claims that Academic skepticism:","choices":["is neither true nor false, and cannot be proven.","is neither true nor false, but can be refuted.","is false and can be refuted.","is false but cannot be refuted.","is true, and can be proven.","is true, but can be refuted.","is false, but can be proven.","is true, and can be refuted.","is false, and cannot be proven.","is true, but cannot be proven"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11150,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. In Thomas Hobbes' philosophy, \"animal motion\" refers to all voluntary behavior, which includes both physical actions and mental processes driven by desires and aversions.\nAnswer: I","question":"By “animal motion,” Hobbes means:","choices":["instinctive behavior, such as nursing young.","irrational behavior.","involuntary operations such as heartbeat and breathing.","the physical actions and reactions of animals.","human behavior that is driven by basic needs.","all forms of non-human animal behavior.","the process by which animals move from one place to another.","behavior that is driven by fear or survival instincts.","all voluntary behavior.","the movement and behavior of animals in the wild."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":11151,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Hume's philosophy for help. Hume argues that moral evaluations depend significantly on sentiment or feeling. A person who is unaffected by images of human happiness or misery would likely be indifferent to moral distinctions, such as virtue and vice.\nAnswer: C","question":"Hume claims that a person who is unaffected by images of human happiness or misery will also be indifferent to:","choices":["art and beauty.","love and hatred.","virtue and vice.","success and failure.","truth and falsehood.","all of the above.","material wealth.","pain and pleasure.","his own well-being.","the welfare of others."],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11152,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Derek Parfit, a prominent philosopher, has discussed the comparability of pains in his work. He suggests that while it is challenging to compare pains precisely, it is possible to make rough comparisons.\nAnswer: B","question":"Parfit claims that the magnitude of pains:","choices":["can be precisely compared.","can be compared, but only roughly.","can be compared within individuals, but not between individuals.","cannot compared either within individuals or between individuals."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11153,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Thomas Nagel, in his discussions on moral luck, argues that it is plausible that people cannot be morally assessed for what is due to factors beyond their control.\nAnswer: E","question":"Nagel claims that prior to reflection, it is plausible that people cannot be morally assessed for:","choices":["actions that affect only themselves.","actions performed under duress.","actions that do not violate anyone’s rights.","actions that benefit others.","what is due to factors beyond their control.","actions that are socially acceptable.","their personal beliefs and thoughts.","their character."],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11154,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. In his \"Meditations on First Philosophy,\" Descartes initially supposes that everything he sees is false as part of his method of radical doubt.\nAnswer: C","question":"At first Descartes supposes that everything he sees is _____.","choices":["TRUE","undeniable","FALSE","unchangeable","an illusion","part of him","a product of his senses","imaginary","definitive","a reflection of his mind"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11155,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Cicero, in his works, particularly emphasizes the importance of moral rightness and argues against the separation of expediency from moral rightness. He claims that there could be “no more pernicious doctrine” than the idea that a thing may be expedient without being morally right.\nAnswer: E","question":"Cicero claims that there could be “no more pernicious doctrine” than the idea that:","choices":["it is sometimes necessary to act against one's principles.","it is sometimes permissible to lie.","moral rightness is relative to one’s culture.","morality is subjective and can be changed based on personal preferences.","a thing may be expedient without being morally right.","lying is always morally wrong.","one's actions do not have consequences.","the gods do not care what we do.","there is no absolute truth.","the gods are indifferent to human affairs."],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11156,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. David Gauthier, a philosopher known for his work in moral philosophy, particularly discusses the foundational crisis in morality in terms of justified constraint. He argues that traditional moral theories struggle to justify why individuals should constrain their self-interest for the sake of others. This issue is central to his contractarian approach, which seeks to ground moral principles in rational agreement.\n\nAnswer: B","question":"The morality that Gauthier describes as facing a foundational crisis essentially involves:","choices":["consequentialism.","justified constraint.","pure altruism.","divine command theory.","virtue ethics.","deontological ethics.","moral relativism.","prima facie duties.","enlightened egoism."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11157,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to Thomas Nagel, the problem of moral luck arises because the self is threatened with dissolution by the absorption of its acts into the class of events. This means that when we consider actions as events influenced by luck, it challenges our understanding of individual moral responsibility.\nAnswer: D","question":"According to Nagel, the problem of moral luck arises because:","choices":["moral theories don't take into account the element of luck.","there is too much emphasis on individual responsibility in our moral theories.","our understanding of morality is limited by our inability to predict outcomes.","the self is threatened with dissolution by the absorption of its acts into the class of events.","philosophers focus too much on the role of chance in human actions.","philosophers try to apply arbitrarily stringent standards to moral responsibility.","Nagel believes that morality is entirely dependent on luck.","our moral theories are hopelessly off track.","our theories of human action are hopelessly off track.","the concept of luck is incompatible with the concept of morality."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11158,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy of language for help. Charles Stevenson, a prominent figure in emotivism, argued that ethical terms like \"good\" have emotive meaning that is primarily used to express approval and to influence others' attitudes. This aligns with the concept of expressive use.\nAnswer: E","question":"According to Stevenson, the word “good” has a pleasing emotive meaning that fits it for:","choices":["dynamic use.","descriptive use.","inferential use.","propositional use.","expressive use.","evaluative use.","analytical use.","semantic use.","constructive use.","pragmatic use."],"correct":"A","answer":"E","score":0}
{"number":11159,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Peter Singer's essay \"Famine, Affluence, and Morality\" for help. Singer argues that the moral obligation to help others does not diminish with physical distance. He suggests that famine relief organizations can direct aid effectively, implying that they can be as effective as personal efforts to help those nearby.\n\nAnswer: H","question":"Singer claims that famine relief organizations direct our aid to distant refugees:","choices":["with a focus on quantity over quality, leading to possible misallocation.","very inefficiently, and are therefore not worth donating to.","with a high level of bureaucracy and corruption, therefore not recommended.","more effectively than we could get it to our close neighbors.","extremely efficiently, making them the only viable option for aid distribution.","very effectively, but only in certain regions.","moderately efficiently, although there may be better alternatives.","almost as effectively as we could get it to our close neighbors.","effectively, but at a high operational cost."],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":11160,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy and neuroscience for help. Descartes believed that the interaction between the body and mind took place in the pineal gland.\nAnswer: G","question":"Descartes believed that interaction between body and mind took place in _____.","choices":["ectoplasm","the amygdala","the hypothalamus","the nervous system","the brain stem","the cerebral cortex","the pineal gland","the corpus callosum","the spinal cord","the hippocampus"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11161,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"Some firefighters rescue victims from danger\" can be broken down as follows:\n- There exists some x such that x is a firefighter (Fx).\n- There exists some y such that y is a victim (Vy).\n- There exists some z such that z is a danger (Dz).\n- x rescues y from z (Rxyz).\n\nThus, we need a formula that states there exists a firefighter who rescues a victim from danger. The correct translation into predicate logic should capture all these elements.\n\nOption (H) correctly translates this as:\n(∃x){Fx • (∃y)[Vy • (∃z)(Dz • Rxyz)]}\n\nAnswer: H","question":" Select the best translation into predicate logic. Some firefighters rescue victims from danger. (Dx: x is danger; Fx: x is a firefighter; Vx: x is a victim; Rxyz: x rescues y from z)","choices":["(∀x){Fx ⊃ (∃y)[Vy . (∃z)(Dz • Rxyz)]}","(∃x){Fx • (∀y)[Dy ⊃ (∃z)(Vz • Rxyz)]}","(∀x){Fx ⊃ (∃y)[Dy . (∃z)(Vz • Rxyz)]}","(∃x){Fx • (∀y)[Vy ⊃ (∀z)(Dz • Rxyz)]}","(∃x){Fx • (∀y)[Vy ⊃ (∃z)(Dz • Rxyz)]}","(∀x){Fx ⊃ (∀y)[Vy ⊃ (∃z)(Dz • Rxyz)]}","(∃x){Fx • (∃y)[Dy • (∃z)(Vz • Rzxy)]}","(∃x){Fx • (∃y)[Vy • (∃z)(Dz • Rxyz)]}","(∃x){Fx • (∃y)[Dy • (∃z)(Vz • Rxyz)]}","(∃x){Fx • (∃y)(∃z)[(Vy • Dz) • Rxzy]}"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":11162,"response":"Explanation: Let's use indirect truth tables to determine the consistency of the given set of propositions:\n\n1. \\(\\neg N \\equiv (O \\cdot P)\\)\n2. \\(\\neg O \\supset Q\\)\n3. \\(N \\cdot \\neg Q\\)\n\nWe need to find a consistent valuation where all three propositions can be true simultaneously.\n\n### Step-by-Step Analysis:\n\n1. **Proposition 3: \\(N \\cdot \\neg Q\\)**\n   - For this to be true, \\(N\\) must be true and \\(Q\\) must be false.\n   - Therefore, \\(N = T\\) and \\(Q = F\\).\n\n2. **Proposition 2: \\(\\neg O \\supset Q\\)**\n   - Given \\(Q = F\\), for this implication to hold, \\(\\neg O\\) must be false (since an implication with a false consequent requires a false antecedent).\n   - Therefore, \\(O = T\\).\n\n3. **Proposition 1: \\(\\neg N \\equiv (O \\cdot P)\\)**\n   - Given \\(N = T\\), \\(\\neg N = F\\).\n   - For the biconditional to hold, \\(O \\cdot P\\) must also be false.\n   - Since \\(O = T\\), for \\(O \\cdot P\\) to be false, \\(P\\) must be false.\n   - Therefore, \\(P = F\\).\n\n### Consistent Valuation:\n- \\(N = T\\)\n- \\(O = T\\)\n- \\(P = F\\)\n- \\(Q = F\\)\n\nThis matches option G.\n\nAnswer: G","question":" Use indirect truth tables to determine whether each set of propositions is consistent. If the set is consistent, choose an option with a consistent valuation. (There may be other consistent valuations.)\n~N ≡ (O · P)\n~O ⊃ Q\nN · ~Q","choices":["Inconsistent. Inconsistent valuation when N, O, P, and Q are all false","Inconsistent","Consistent. Consistent valuation when N, O, and P are true and Q is false","Inconsistent. Inconsistent valuation when N and P are true and O and Q are false","Consistent. Consistent valuation when N and P are true and O and Q are false","Inconsistent. Inconsistent valuation when N, O, P, and Q are all true","Consistent. Consistent valuation when N and O are true and P and Q are false","Consistent. Consistent valuation when O, P, and Q are true and N is false"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11163,"response":"Explanation: Let's construct the truth table step by step. We need to evaluate the argument:\n\n1. ~S ∨ T\n2. ~S · U\n3. ~T ∨ U\n4. / T · U\n\nWe'll list all possible truth values for S, T, and U, and then determine the truth values for each component of the argument.\n\n| S | T | U | ~S | ~T | ~S ∨ T | ~S · U | ~T ∨ U | T · U |\n|---|---|---|----|----|--------|--------|--------|------|\n| T | T | T |  F |  F |   T    |   F    |   T    |  T   |\n| T | T | F |  F |  F |   T    |   F    |   F    |  F   |\n| T | F | T |  F |  T |   F    |   F    |   T    |  F   |\n| T | F | F |  F |  T |   F    |   F    |   T    |  F   |\n| F | T | T |  T |  F |   T    |   T    |   T    |  T   |\n| F | T | F |  T |  F |   T    |   F    |   F    |  F   |\n| F | F | T |  T |  T|    T     ||     TT      ||      FF     ||       FF     |\n||       FF     ||       TT      ||       FF     ||       FF     |\n\nThe argument is valid if there is no row where all premises are true and the conclusion is false. \n\nFrom the table, we see that in rows where all premises (~S ∨T, ~S·U, and ~T ∨U) are true, the conclusion (T·U) is also true.\n\nThus, there is no counterexample where all premises are true and the conclusion is false.\n\nAnswer: C","question":" Construct a complete truth table for the following argument. Then, using the truth table, determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\n~S ∨ T\n~S · U\n~T ∨ U / T · U","choices":["Invalid. Counterexample when T is true, and S and U are false","Invalid. Counterexample when U is true and S and T are false","Valid","Valid. No counterexample exists.","Invalid. Counterexample when S and U are true and T is false","Invalid. Counterexample when S is true, T and U are false","Invalid. Counterexample when S, T, and U are true","Invalid. Counterexample when S is false, T is true, and U is false","Invalid. Counterexample when S is true, T is false, and U is true","Invalid. Counterexample when S, T, and U are false"],"correct":"B","answer":"C","score":0}
{"number":11164,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on feminist legal theory for help. West argues that feminist legal theory has inadvertently led to the under-acknowledgement of the harms of consensual sex by suggesting that the harm of rape is that it is nonconsensual, thereby implying that all consensual sex is good.\nAnswer: B","question":" West argues that feminist legal theory has inadvertently led to the under-acknowledgement of the harms of consensual sex because","choices":["it posits that all sex is rape.","by suggesting that the harm of rape is that it is nonconsensual, it implies that all consensual sex is good.","by suggesting that the harm of rape has nothing to do with the victim's gender, it implies that women are not especially harmed by nonconsensual sex.","it supports the idea that consent is the only factor determining the harm of sex.","it implies that consensual sex is inherently harmful.","by suggesting that the harm of rape is only physical, it implies that emotional trauma in consensual sex is not harmful.","by suggesting that rape is only harmful in cases of physical injury, it implies that psychological harm in consensual sex is not important.","it suggests that the harm of rape is entirely dependent on the victim's personal perception, thereby downplaying the potential harms of consensual sex.","all of the above.","it argues that women are not capable of giving consent."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11165,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is a philosopher known for his work on moral skepticism and the ethics of climate change, focusing on the moral obligations of individuals.\nAnswer: J","question":" Sinnott-Armstrong is most interested in examining issues about the moral obligations of","choices":["educational institutions.","environmental entities.","animals.","governments.","corporations.","families.","religious groups.","technology companies.","societies.","individuals."],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":11166,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on political philosophy for help. Insisting on unlimited property rights is a core tenet of libertarianism, which emphasizes individual liberty and minimal state intervention.\nAnswer: C","question":" Wellman argues that insisting on unlimited property rights commits one to","choices":["anarchy.","deontological theory.","libertarianism.","communitarianism.","socialism.","egalitarianism.","utilitarianism.","consequentialism.","capitalism.","authoritarianism."],"correct":"A","answer":"C","score":0}
{"number":11167,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. Michael Sandel's critique of moral engineering, particularly in his book \"The Case Against Perfection,\" focuses on the ethical implications of biotechnological enhancements and genetic engineering. Sandel argues from a perspective that emphasizes the importance of accepting the natural gifts and limitations of human beings, which aligns with virtue ethics. Virtue ethics focuses on the character and virtues of individuals rather than solely on the consequences or rules governing actions.\n\nAnswer: F","question":" Sandel's case against moral engineering can best be considered","choices":["an expression of the ethics of care.","a natural law theory approach.","an application of the ethics of prima facie duty.","a deontological approach.","an existentialist approach.","a virtue ethics approach.","a relativist approach.","a Kantian approach.","a consequentialist approach.","a utilitarian approach."],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":11168,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. In his final work, \"Laws,\" Plato shifted his focus from cosmology to issues related to political philosophy, including morality, legislation, and the organization of society. Among the given options, morality is the most fitting description of the shift in focus.\n\nAnswer: B","question":" In his final work, Laws, Plato shifted from cosmology to which of the following issues?","choices":["Epistemology","Morality","Religion","Aesthetics"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11169,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Jainism for help. In Jainism, \"samyak jnana\" refers to \"right knowledge\" or \"correct knowledge.\" This is one of the Three Jewels (Ratnatraya) of Jainism, which are right faith, right knowledge, and right conduct.\nAnswer: C","question":" What is the meaning ofsamyak jnanawithin the Jaina traditions?","choices":["Correct liberation","Correct understanding","Correct knowledge","Correct faith","Correct conduct","Correct intiution","Correct perception","Correct practice","Correct meditation","Correct belief"],"correct":"F","answer":"C","score":0}
{"number":11170,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the context provided and general knowledge about the hijab. The hijab is worn for various reasons, but the foremost reason in the present day, as indicated by the context, includes expressing Islamic identity and religious expression. Women wear it to demonstrate their submission to God, pride in their ethnic identity, and as a means of resistance to certain societal standards.\n\nAnswer: F","question":" What is the foremost reason for wearing the hijab in the present day?","choices":["Islamic superiority","Islamic rebellion","Islamic isolation","Islamic protection","Islamic tradition","Islamic identity","Islamic fashion","Islamic seclusion"],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":11171,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The horse laugh fallacy, also known as appeal to ridicule, involves responding to an argument with derision or mockery instead of providing a counter-argument.\nAnswer: D","question":"Which of the following describes the horse laugh fallacy?","choices":["arguing actions should be taken to avoid negative results, when those results are exaggerated, unlikely, or irrelevant","claiming that an argument is invalid based on the speaker's hypocrisy or inconsistency","characterizing an opponent's position in such way to make it or its consequences appear to be ridiculous","responding to an argument with an expression of derision instead of a counter argument","arguing that since something has not been proven false, it must be true","attacking an opponent's character or personal traits instead of their argument","using personal feelings or prejudices to sway the argument, instead of logic","using a misrepresentation or exaggeration of an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack","attempts to gain agreement based solely the feelings aroused by the message","introducing a point that is irrelevant to the argument as a diversionary tactic"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11172,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the provided context on logical fallacies for help. The post hoc fallacy, also known as \"post hoc ergo propter hoc,\" is the fallacy of assuming that because one event preceded another, the first event must have caused the second. This is clearly stated in option A.\nAnswer: A","question":"The _post hoc_ fallacy is","choices":["arguing that since one event preceded another event the first event must have caused the second event","drawing a conclusion about a causal relationship when there is no evidence of a causal relationship","arguing that since two things happened at the same time one must have caused the other","arguing that a single event caused another when there is no logical connection between them","drawing a conclusion about a causal relationship based on a single instance","arguing that an event must have caused another because they are correlated","arguing that a single event caused another when the cause is really several events","drawing a conclusion about a causal relationship based on hearsay or anecdotal evidence","arguing that since two events are unrelated, one cannot have caused the other"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11173,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The argument presented assumes that because the class as a whole was praised, each individual student should have received a good grade. This is an example of the Fallacy of Division, where one assumes that what is true of the whole must also be true of its parts.\n\nAnswer: F","question":"At the end of the course, Professor Jones told us that we were the best class he had ever had. That's why I'm sure that the 0.0 the appeared on my grade report is a mistake. Surely, if we were as good a class as Professor Jones said we were, none of us deserved to fail.","choices":["Appeal to Gallery (Provicialism)","Fallacy of Composition","Red Herring","Appeal to Authority","Straw Man","Fallacy of Division","Slippery Slope","Appeal to Ignorance","False Dilemma","Questionable Cause"],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":11174,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy described involves discrediting someone's actions based on their association with a particular position or group, rather than evaluating the actions themselves. This is known as \"Guilt by association.\"\n\nAnswer: A","question":"Arguing that someone couldn't have done something good because she holds a particular position commits the fallacy of","choices":["Guilt by association","False dilemma","Reprehensible personality","False dichotomy"],"correct":"C","answer":"A","score":0}
{"number":11175,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The statement \"Men are better drivers than women are\" is supported by the claim that \"men are more capable than women of managing cars on the road.\" This argument assumes what it is trying to prove without providing independent evidence, thus it is an example of circular reasoning or \"begging the question.\"\n\nAnswer: C","question":"Men are better drivers than women are. The proof of this is that men are more capable than women of managing cars on the road.","choices":["False Dilemma","Appeal to Pity","Begging the question","Appeal to Authority","Bandwagon Fallacy","Ad hominem (Attacking the Person)","Appeal to Ignorance","Straw Man Fallacy","Slippery Slope","Red Herring"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11176,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy described involves starting with a desired conclusion and then selectively accepting or interpreting evidence to support that conclusion. This is known as \"confirmation bias,\" but since \"confirmation bias\" is not listed among the options, we need to find the closest match.\n\n- **Ad ignorantium** (A) refers to an argument from ignorance, where a proposition is considered true because it has not been proven false.\n- **A priori** (B) refers to knowledge or justification that is independent of experience.\n- **Plurium interrogationum** (C) refers to a complex question fallacy, where a question is posed in such a way that it presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.\n- **Extension** (D) does not directly relate to the described fallacy.\n\nNone of these options perfectly describe the fallacy of confirmation bias. However, given the choices, the closest option might be **a priori** reasoning (B), which can sometimes involve starting with a preconceived notion and interpreting evidence accordingly, though this is not an exact match.\n\nAnswer: B","question":"The fallacy that involves reasoning that determines the conclusion one wants first, then accepts only evidence supporting that conclusion, or interprets all evidence as support for that conclusion is known as","choices":["ad ignorantium","a priori","plurium interrogationum","Extension"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11177,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy of accident, also known as \"sweeping generalization,\" occurs when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover. Another name for this fallacy is \"dicto simpliciter.\"\nAnswer: H","question":"Another name for the fallacy of accident is","choices":["Red herring","Slippery slope","Either-or fallacy","Straw man argument","Hasty generalization","Guilt by association","Appeal to ignorance","Dicto simpliciter","False cause fallacy","Laudatory personality"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":11178,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to David Hume, morality is ultimately based on human sentiment or feeling. He emphasizes the role of sympathy in moral evaluations, which means our ability to partake in the feelings, beliefs, and emotions of others.\n\nAnswer: I","question":"According to Hume, morality is ultimately based on:","choices":["cultural norms.","social agreements.","reason.","personal beliefs.","individual experiences.","scientific facts.","God’s commands.","self-interest.","sympathy.","emotional responses."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":11179,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Augustine's philosophy for help. Augustine of Hippo famously identified evil not as a unique force or substance but rather as the absence or privation of good (privatio boni). According to Augustine, evil does not have an independent existence but is a corruption or lack of good.\n\nAnswer: H","question":"Augustine identifies evil with:","choices":["a test from God.","God's punishment for sin.","human nature.","the influence of the devil.","a unique force, opposed to goodness.","the presence of sin.","ignorance.","the absence of good.","physical matter.","pain."],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":11180,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. According to Elizabeth Anscombe in her influential paper \"Modern Moral Philosophy,\" she argues that the concept of \"moral obligation\" has lost its meaning in contemporary usage because it originally derived from a theistic framework, specifically the commands of God. Without belief in God, she argues, the concept of moral obligation becomes incoherent.\n\nAnswer: G","question":"According to Anscombe, “moral obligation” currently signifies:","choices":["the beliefs of a certain culture.","the laws of a country.","the thoughts of an influential person.","the commands of God.","the feelings of an individual.","the desires of a community.","no real concept at all.","the teachings of philosophy.","the norms of a society.","the rules of a religious institution."],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11181,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Tolstoy's life for help. Before his conversion, Leo Tolstoy was surrounded by the pressures of aristocratic society and an abundance of wealth and power. However, the most accurate description that fits the context of his pre-conversion life is the pressures of aristocratic society.\nAnswer: D","question":"Before his conversion, what was Tolstoy surrounded by?","choices":["things that no one would want","what is considered deep insight","a life of poverty and hardship","the pressures of aristocratic society","what is considered utter despair","an abundance of wealth and power","what is considered complete happiness","what is considered heavenly bliss","a world of literature and art","the turmoil of a war"],"correct":"G","answer":"D","score":0}
{"number":11182,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Cicero, a Roman philosopher and statesman, emphasized the importance of moral duties in his works, particularly in \"De Officiis\" (On Duties). He believed that understanding and fulfilling one's moral duties was essential for practical living and the well-being of society.\nAnswer: A","question":"According to Cicero, the most practical branch of philosophy deals with:","choices":["moral duties.","epistemology.","logic.","expedience.","mathematics.","natural science.","political theory.","aesthetics.","rhetoric.","metaphysics."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11183,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on John Rawls' philosophy for help. Rawls' theory of justice includes the principle that social and economic inequalities should be arranged to benefit the least advantaged members of society. This implies that students with fewer native assets should receive more attention and resources to ensure fair equality of opportunity.\n\nAnswer: I","question":"Rawls claims that students with fewer native assets (such as intelligence) should be given:","choices":["the same level of attention and resources as those with more native assets.","educational resources based on their social background.","resources based on their willingness to learn.","educational resources based on their economic background.","less attention and fewer resources than those with more native assets.","entirely different educational resources than those with more native assets.","virtually no educational resources.","the opportunity to compete with those having more native assets.","more attention and resources than those with more native assets.","access to only basic education."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":11184,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to John Stuart Mill, the distinction between justice and other moral obligations corresponds to the distinction between perfect and imperfect obligations. Perfect obligations are those that are precise and enforceable, such as duties of justice, while imperfect obligations are broader and less enforceable, such as duties of charity.\n\nAnswer: I","question":"Mill claims that the distinction between justice and other moral obligations corresponds perfectly to the distinction between:","choices":["strong and weak duties.","personal and public duties.","conscious and unconscious obligations.","absolute and relative obligations.","positive and negative duties.","moral and ethical obligations.","direct and indirect duties.","legal and illegal obligations.","perfect and imperfect obligations.","urgent and non-urgent obligations."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":11185,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy and Nussbaum's work for help. Martha Nussbaum is known for her work on the capabilities approach and cross-cultural communication. She often discusses how different cultures can have varying conceptual schemes and how these differences can lead to relativistic views in interactions.\nAnswer: H","question":"Nussbaum claims that in cross-cultural communication, inhabitants of different conceptual schemes tend to view their interaction:","choices":["in a utilitarian way.","in a Cartesian way.","in a nihilistic way.","in a Hegelian way.","in a Kantian way.","in a Platonic way.","in an absolutist way.","in a relativist way.","in a Socratic way.","in an Aristotelian way."],"correct":"J","answer":"H","score":0}
{"number":11186,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. In David Hume's \"Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion,\" Philo critiques Cleanthes' argument from design, stating that the analogy Cleanthes uses is weak.\nAnswer: F","question":"Philo says the analogy that Cleanthes uses to make his case is _____.","choices":["strong","reliant on circular reasoning","too complicated","overly simplistic","biased in favor of Cleanthes' conclusion","weak","not based on a legitimate method of reasoning","irrelevant to the argument","based on a fallacy","lacking in evidence"],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":11187,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on aesthetics for help. Aesthetic values pertain to the appreciation of beauty and artistic quality in works of art and other objects. This involves judgments about what is considered good or bad in terms of beauty and artistic merit.\nAnswer: F","question":"Aesthetic values have to do with _______","choices":["the physical durability of works of art and other objects that could be judged beautiful","the moral value of works of art and other objects that could be judged beautiful","the moral values of artists and critics","the political implications of works of art and other objects that could be judged beautiful","the economic value of works of art and other objects that could be judged beautiful","good and bad works of art and other objects that could be judged beautiful","the historical significance of works of art and other objects that could be judged beautiful","the cultural context of works of art and other objects that could be judged beautiful","the religious symbolism in works of art and other objects that could be judged beautiful","pragmatic decisions regarding the display of art"],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":11188,"response":"Explanation: Let's construct the truth table for the given argument step by step.\n\n1. The given argument is:\n   Premise: ~K ≡ L\n   Conclusion: (K · L) ∨ (K · ~L)\n\n2. We need to determine the truth values for each combination of K and L.\n\n| K | L | ~K | ~K ≡ L | K · L | K · ~L | (K · L) ∨ (K · ~L) |\n|---|---|----|--------|-------|-------|-------------------|\n| T | T |  F |    F   |   T   |   F   |         T         |\n| T | F |  F |    T   |   F   |   T   |         T         |\n| F | T |  T |    T   |   F   |   F   |         F         |\n| F | F |  T |    F   |   F   |   F   |         F         |\n\n3. Now, let's analyze the rows where the premise (~K ≡ L) is true and check if the conclusion ((K · L) ∨ (K · ~L)) holds.\n\n- For K = T, L = F:\n  - Premise (~K ≡ L) is true.\n  - Conclusion ((K · L) ∨ (K · ~L)) is true.\n\n- For K = F, L = T:\n  - Premise (~K ≡ L) is true.\n  - Conclusion ((K · L) ∨ (K · ~L)) is false.\n\nSince there is a case where the premise is true but the conclusion is false, the argument is invalid. The counterexample occurs when K is false and L is true.\n\nAnswer: D","question":"Construct a complete truth table for the following argument. Then, using the truth table, determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\n~K ≡ L / (K · L) ∨ (K · ~L)","choices":["Invalid. Counterexample when K is true and L is false","Valid. Counterexample when K is true and L is false","Valid. No counterexamples exist","Invalid. Counterexample when L is true and K is false","Invalid. Counterexample when K and L are true","Invalid. Multiple counterexamples exist","Valid","Invalid. Counterexample when L is false and K is true","Invalid. Counterexample when both K and L are false"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11189,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. We need to use indirect truth tables to determine the validity of the argument. \n\n1. The premises are:\n   - P ⊃ (Q ∨ R)\n   - (Q · S) ⊃ ~P\n   - ~(~Q ∨ R)\n\n2. The conclusion is:\n   - ~P\n\nTo use an indirect truth table, we assume the conclusion is false and see if this leads to a contradiction with the premises.\n\nAssume ~P is false, which means P is true.\n\nGiven P is true:\n- From P ⊃ (Q ∨ R), (Q ∨ R) must be true.\n- From (Q · S) ⊃ ~P, since P is true, (Q · S) must be false, meaning either Q is false or S is false (or both).\n\nNow consider the third premise:\n- ~(~Q ∨ R) simplifies to Q ∧ ~R.\n\nSo, we have:\n- Q must be true.\n- R must be false.\n\nLet's check for contradictions:\n- If Q is true and R is false, then Q ∨ R is true.\n- If Q is true and S must be false (since (Q · S) must be false), there are no contradictions with the premises.\n\nTherefore, our assumptions do not lead to a contradiction, indicating that the argument is invalid. \n\nWe need to find a counterexample where all premises are true but the conclusion is false:\n\n- P = true\n- Q = true\n- R = false\n- S = false\n\nThis matches option F: \"Invalid. Counterexample when P and Q are true and R and S are false.\"\n\nAnswer: F","question":"Use indirect truth tables to determine whether the following argument is valid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\nP ⊃ (Q ∨ R)\n(Q · S) ⊃ ~P\n~(~Q ∨ R) / ~P","choices":["Invalid. Counterexample when P, Q, R, and S are true","Valid","Valid. No counterexamples exist","Invalid. Counterexample when P and R are true and Q and S are false","Invalid. Counterexample when P is true, Q, R, and S are false","Invalid. Counterexample when P and Q are true and R and S are false","Invalid. Counterexample when P is false, Q, R, and S are true","Invalid. Counterexample when P, R, and S are true and Q is false","Invalid. Counterexample when P and S are true and Q and R are false"],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":11190,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"If either George enrolls or Harry enrolls, then Ira does not enroll\" can be broken down as follows:\n- \"Either George enrolls or Harry enrolls\" is represented as \\( G \\lor H \\).\n- \"Ira does not enroll\" is represented as \\( \\neg I \\).\n\nPutting it together in a conditional statement, we get:\n- If \\( G \\lor H \\), then \\( \\neg I \\).\n\nIn predicate logic, this is symbolized as:\n\\[ (G \\lor H) \\supset \\neg I \\]\n\nAnswer: G","question":" Which of the given formulas of PL is the best symbolization of the following sentence?\nIf either George enrolls or Harry enrolls, then Ira does not enroll.","choices":["(G ∨ H) ∨ ~I","(G ⊃ H) ∨ ~I","(G ⊃ ~H) ∨ I","(G ∨ H) ∨ I","(G ⊃ H) ∨ I","(G ∨ I) ⊃ ~H","(G ∨ H) ⊃ ~I","(G ⊃ I) ∨ H","(G ∨ H) ⊃ I","(G ∨ ~H) ⊃ I"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11191,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"Some animals are neglected by cruel people\" can be broken down as follows:\n- There exists some animal (Ax).\n- There exists some person who is cruel (Px • Cy).\n- This cruel person neglects the animal (Nxy).\n\nThe correct translation should capture that there exists an animal and a cruel person such that the person neglects the animal. \n\nLooking at the options:\n- Option (D) correctly translates this idea: (∃x)[(Cx • Px) • (∃y)(Ay • Nxy)], which states that there exists an x such that x is a cruel person, and there exists a y such that y is an animal and x neglects y.\n\nAnswer: D","question":" Select the best translation into predicate logic. Some animals are neglected by cruel people. (Ax: x is an animal; Cx: x is cruel; Px: x is a person; Nxy: x neglects y)","choices":["(∃x)[(Cx • Py) • (∃y)(Ay • Nyx)]","(∃x)[(Px • Ax) • (∃y)(Cy • Nyx)]","(∃x)[(Ax • Cx) • (∃y)(Py • Nyx)]","(∃x)[(Cx • Px) • (∃y)(Ay • Nxy)]","(∃x)[(Ax • Px) • (∃y)(Cy • Nxy)]","(∃x)[(Px • Cx) • (∃y)(Ay • Nyx)]","(∃x)(∃y){[(Ax • Px) • Cy] • Nyx)}","(∃x)[(Ax • Px) • (∃y)(Cy • Nyx)]","(∃x)(∃y){[(Ax • Cy) • Py] • Nxy)]}"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11192,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The statement \"All robots are artifacts\" can be translated into predicate logic as \"For all x, if x is a robot, then x is an artifact.\" This corresponds to the form (∀x)(Rx ⊃ Ax), where Rx means \"x is a robot\" and Ax means \"x is an artifact.\"\n\nAnswer: F","question":" Select the best translation into predicate logic: All robots are artifacts.","choices":["(∀x)(Rx ⊂ Ax)","(∀x)(Ax ⊃ Rx)","(∀x)(Ax ⊂ Rx)","(∀x)(Ax ∨ Rx)","(∀x)(Ax • Rx)","(∀x)(Rx ⊃ Ax)","(∀x)(Rx • Ax)","(∀x)(Rx ∨ Ax)"],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":11193,"response":"Explanation: Let's construct the truth table step by step to determine the validity of the argument. \n\nThe argument is:\n1. (G ≡ H) · ~I\n2. ~G ∨ (~H ∨ I)\n3. / G\n\nWe need to check all possible truth values for G, H, and I to see if there is any counterexample where the premises are true and the conclusion is false.\n\n| G | H | I | G ≡ H | ~I | (G ≡ H) · ~I | ~G | ~H | ~H ∨ I | ~G ∨ (~H ∨ I) | Conclusion: G |\n|---|---|---|-------|----|-------------|----|----|--------|-----------------|--------------|\n| T | T | T |   T   |  F |      F      |  F |  F |    T   |        T        |      T       |\n| T | T | F |   T   |  T |      T      |  F |  F |    F   |        F        |      T       |\n| T | F | T |   F   |  F |      F      |  F |  T |    T   |        T        |      T       |\n| T | F | F |   F   |  T |      F      |  F |  T |    T   |        T        |      T       |\n| F | T | T |   F   |  F |      F      |  T |  F |    T   |        T        |\n| F | T | F|    F   ||T||F||T||F||T||T||\nF||F||T||T||F|\nF||F||F||T||\nF||T|\nF|\n\nFrom the table, we see that there is no row where both premises are true and the conclusion is false. Therefore, the argument is valid.\n\nAnswer: D","question":" Construct a complete truth table for the following argument. Then, using the truth table, determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\n(G ≡ H) · ~I\n~G ∨ (~H ∨ I) / G","choices":["Invalid. Counterexample when H and G are true and I is false","Invalid. Counterexample when H and I are true and G is false","Invalid. Counterexample when H, I, and G are false","Valid. No counterexample exists.","Valid","Invalid. Counterexample when I is true and H and G are false","Invalid. Counterexample when G is true and H and I are false","Invalid. Counterexample when H is true and I and G are false","Invalid. Counterexample when H is false and I and G are true","Invalid. Counterexample when I is false and H and G are true"],"correct":"C","answer":"D","score":0}
{"number":11194,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy and ethics for help. J. David Velleman, a philosopher, has argued that offering the option of euthanasia can harm the patient by placing an undue burden on them to justify their continued existence. This concern is primarily about the potential psychological and moral harm to the patient.\n\nAnswer: F","question":" Velleman worries that, by offering a patient the option of euthanasia,","choices":["we encourage a culture of euthanasia.","we violate medical ethics.","we disregard the patient's will to live.","we limit the patient's treatment options.","we harm the patient's family.","we harm the patient.","we infringe on the patient's religious beliefs.","we risk legal complications.","we allow the patient to harm him- or herself.","we force doctors to harm the patient."],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":11195,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on global economic justice for help. Ashford's argument suggests that concerns about dependency should not lead us to neglect or abandon those in extreme poverty. Instead, we should still address their needs and work towards justice.\n\nAnswer: B","question":" Ashford argues that worries about causing dependency on aid agencies among those in extreme poverty does not mean that we should","choices":["suggest that aid agencies are the only solution to global poverty.","abandon the world's poor to their unjust predicament.","argue that aid agencies are inherently unjust.","increase the amount of aid given to the world's poor.","ignore the issue of global economic justice.","force the world's poor to be self-sufficient.","stop all forms of international aid.","accept the view that we have no negative duties to the poor.","adopt a social contract approach to the problem of global economic justice.","legally abolish aid agencies."],"correct":"I","answer":"B","score":0}
{"number":11196,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on theories of punishment for help. The retributive theory of punishment is based on the idea that wrongdoers deserve to be punished and that the punishment should fit the crime. It does not justify punishments based on the overall intrinsic value they produce, which is a consequentialist view.\n\nAnswer: A","question":" The retributive theory of punishment does not claim that","choices":["specific punishments are justified based on the overall intrinsic value that they produce","wrongdoers deserve to be punished.","the punishment should fit the crime.","the punishment should be as severe as the crime.","wrongdoers should be punished regardless of their personal circumstances.","the death penalty might be morally justified in some cases of murder."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11197,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to scholarly articles on human rights for help. According to Ashford, a structural human rights violation involves ongoing patterns of behavior by a large number of agents that predictably result in many others being deprived of fundamental human rights, such as the means of subsistence.\nAnswer: D","question":" Ashford defines a structural human rights violation as","choices":["all of the above","none of the above.","the violation of fundamental human rights brought about the political structures of a particular government.","ongoing patterns of behavior by a large number of agents which predictably result in many others coming to be deprived of the object of a fundamental human right: the means of subsistence.","the violation of human rights brought about by economic structures.","violations that result from the cultural and religious beliefs of a society.","ongoing patterns of behavior by a small number of agents which unpredictably result in many others coming to be deprived of the object of a fundamental human right.","violations of human rights that are unintentional but result from the societal structures.","violations of human rights that pertain to the structure of a person's practical, social, and political agency.","the violation of human rights caused by environmental factors."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11198,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. Nathanson's form of retributivism emphasizes proportionality and humane treatment but does not necessarily require the death penalty for the most serious crimes. Instead, it focuses on a list of crimes ranked by seriousness and corresponding punishments that are proportional to those crimes.\n\nAnswer: D","question":" Nathanson proposes a form of retributivism that requires all of the following except","choices":["a list of crimes ranked according to their seriousness.","a scale of punishments that correspond to the seriousness of certain crimes.","treating criminals humanely.","the death penalty for the most serious crimes."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11199,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the works of Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, particularly their book \"The Coddling of the American Mind.\" According to Lukianoff and Haidt, the recent trend to uncover microaggressions encourages labeling, where individuals assign global negative traits to persons based on perceived slights.\n\nAnswer: C","question":" According to Lukianoff and Haidt, the recent trend to uncover microaggressions encourages","choices":["students to confabulate reasons.","the pursuit of justice by marking out racism, sexism, and classism.","labeling, by assigning global negative traits to persons.","universities to bear overly burdensome legal obligations."],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11200,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles and other authoritative sources on philosophy and drug policy for help. De Marneffe is known for his nuanced stance on drug policy, particularly advocating for the decriminalization of drug use while maintaining prohibitions on the sale and manufacturing of drugs to reduce harm.\n\nAnswer: C","question":" Which of the following best characterizes de Marneffe's view?","choices":["The use, sale, and manufacturing of drugs should be legal.","The use, sale, and manufacturing of drugs should be illegal.","The use of drugs should be legal, but the sale and manufacturing of them should be illegal.","The use of drugs should be illegal, but the sale and manufacturing of them should be legal."],"correct":"D","answer":"C","score":0}
{"number":11201,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics and the works of Arthur and Singer for help. In his critique of Singer's arguments regarding world hunger and poverty, Arthur emphasizes that Singer overlooks the principles of rights and desert. Arthur argues that people have rights to their own earnings and resources, and that these rights should not be overridden by the duty to help others.\n\nAnswer: E","question":" With respect to the issue of world hunger and poverty, Arthur points out that Singer ignores","choices":["the principles of sacrifice and reward.","the principles of the right and the good.","the principles of contribution and entitlement.","the principles of equality and harm.","the principles of rights and desert.","the principles of need and capacity.","the principles of duty and benefit.","the principles of ability to help and desires.","the principles of obligation and privilege.","the principles of justice and fairness."],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11202,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on free speech and harm for help. According to Altman, justifications of speech codes that take account of expressive harm have the best prospects for success. Expressive harm refers to the damage done by the content or manner of expression itself, rather than any direct physical or economic consequences.\n\nAnswer: B","question":" According to Altman, justifications of speech codes that take account of which of the following kinds of harm have the best prospects for success?","choices":["causal harm","expressive harm","both causal and expressive harm","auxiliary harm"],"correct":"D","answer":"B","score":0}
{"number":11203,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Sikhism for help. In Sikh traditions, the term \"Guru-Panth\" refers to the collective body or community of Sikhs who follow the teachings of the Gurus. It emphasizes the importance of the community in upholding and living according to Sikh principles.\nAnswer: C","question":"What does the phrase Guru-Panth mean within the Sikh traditions?","choices":["Spiritual journey","Sacred hymn","Community","Apprenticeship","Scripture","Ritual practices","Worship","Divine guidance","Teacher-student relationship","Path of enlightenment"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11204,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Japanese culture for help. One of the most fundamental themes of Japanese culture and civilization is the concept of harmony, order, and balance, often reflected in practices such as Shintoism and Buddhism. However, none of the given options directly reflect this theme. The closest option that aligns with a significant aspect of Japanese culture is:\n\nA. Karma and the cycle of rebirth govern life and death - This reflects Buddhist influences, which are significant in Japan.\n\nAnswer: A","question":"Which is one of the most fundamental themes of Japanese culture and civilization?","choices":["Karma and the cycle of rebirth govern life and death","The universe is inherently chaotic and unpredictable","God is eternal and merciful to those who offer worship","The world is inherently evil and suffering is inevitable","Life is an illusion and the material world is meaningless","Justice will be the final outcome in the next world","The pursuit of individualism is a core value","Power and force are the most divine attributes","The survival of the fittest is an essential principle"],"correct":"C","answer":"A","score":0}
{"number":11205,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on bodhisattvas for help. In Japanese Buddhism, the bodhisattva known for conducting the souls of dead children to salvation is Jizo, also known as Ojizo-sama.\nAnswer: H","question":" Which bodhisattva is known for conducting the souls of dead children to salvation?","choices":["Kannon","Shakyamuni","Manjusri","Guan-yin","Tara","Avalokiteshvara","Vajrapani","Ojizo-sama","Amitabha","Maitreya"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":11206,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The passage presents only two economic systems, capitalism and socialism, as if they are the only options available. This is a classic example of the \"False Dilemma\" fallacy, which occurs when only two choices are presented when more exist.\nAnswer: B","question":"John S. Knight, Detroit Free Press (3 July 1970): ...Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned and operated for profit. The alternative system is called socialism, the theory of the ownership and operation of the means of production by society, with all members sharing in the work and the products.","choices":["Begging the Question","False Dilemma","Straw Man","Appeal to Gallery (Provicialism)"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11207,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy where an arguer threatens another to gain agreement is known as \"appeal to force\" (argumentum ad baculum).\nAnswer: C","question":"An arguer who threatens another to gain agreement commits the fallacy of","choices":["red herring","false analogy","appeal to force","appeal to tradition","circular argument","false cause","straw person","appeal to ridicule","ignorance of refutation","tu quoque"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11208,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy of \"misuse of statistics\" involves using statistical evidence in a misleading way. This is often referred to as the fallacy of \"significance,\" where the significance or relevance of statistical data is misrepresented.\nAnswer: B","question":"\"Misuse of statistics,\" \"questionable statistics,\" and \"questionable use of statistics\" are all other names for the fallacy of","choices":["appeal to a pride","significance","poisoning the well","slippery slope"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11209,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy of amphiboly arises from ambiguous grammar, leading to a misleading interpretation. Another name for this fallacy is \"misusing ambiguity.\"\nAnswer: D","question":"Which of the following is another name for the fallacy of amphiboly?","choices":["Reification","Slippery slope","Begging the question","Misusing ambiguity","False cause","Red herring","Appeal to ignorance","Straw man argument","Special pleading"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11210,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Annette Baier, a prominent philosopher, is known for her work in ethics, particularly in the ethics of care. She argues that genuine moral rules must take into account the interests of all those affected by them, which aligns with the idea that moral rules must be for the good of human beings.\n\nAnswer: F","question":"Baier argues that genuine moral rules:","choices":["must take into account the interests of all living beings.","make take into account the interests of all sentient beings.","should primarily focus on preserving the natural environment.","must align with societal norms and expectations.","are based solely on religious doctrines.","must be for the good of human beings.","should be universally applicable regardless of cultural differences.","must only consider the interests of the individual making the moral decision.","are primarily directed toward promoting self-interest.","are only applicable to those who choose to follow them."],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":11211,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Thomas Aquinas for help. According to Aquinas, man's ultimate happiness consists in the contemplation of God, which he considers the highest activity and the ultimate end of human life.\nAnswer: F","question":"In Aquinas’s view, man’s ultimate happiness consists in:","choices":["worldly possessions and wealth","acts of the moral virtues.","loving God.","pleasure","achieving personal success","contemplating God.","acts of charity towards others","power and control","acquiring knowledge and wisdom","living a life free of suffering"],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":11212,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Kantian ethics for help. According to Immanuel Kant, the moral law is given to each person by reason itself. Kant argued that the moral law is a truth of reason, and hence all rational creatures are bound by the same moral law.\nAnswer: A","question":"Kant claims that the moral law is given to each person by:","choices":["one’s own will.","one's own emotions.","God.","Nature.","the universe.","one's parents.","other people's will.","the government.","cultural norms.","society."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11213,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. John Taurek is known for his argument that the notion of aggregating individual losses should be rejected when making moral decisions. He argues that it is not necessarily worse if two people die compared to one person dying, as each individual's loss should be considered separately rather than summed.\n\nAnswer: D","question":"Taurek claims that:","choices":["the death of two people is always worse than the death of one.","the death of two people is sometimes less bad than the death of one.","the death of two people is always exactly as bad as the death of one.","the notion of the sum of two people’s losses should be rejected."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11214,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Martha Nussbaum and her philosophical views for help. Martha Nussbaum is known for her work on the capabilities approach and her emphasis on the importance of context and cultural differences in understanding virtues. She argues that the specification of particular virtues is always subject to change and cannot be finalized, as it must take into account varying contexts and evolving understandings.\n\nAnswer: H","question":"Nussbaum claims that the specification of particular virtues:","choices":["can only be determined by religious institutions.","is strictly based on personal belief systems.","can be universally agreed upon without cultural differences.","can be settled in such a way as to be no longer revisable.","might sometimes turn out to be a disjunction.","will always be consistent across all societies.","is influenced solely by an individual's personal experiences.","is always subject to change and cannot be finalized.","will always consist of a single answer.","is necessarily relative to a culture."],"correct":"E","answer":"H","score":0}
{"number":11215,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Externalism in the context of meaning often involves considering how external factors (such as social, environmental, or contextual elements) influence meaning. This approach is typically rooted in philosophical inquiry rather than religious or spiritual perspectives.\nAnswer: H","question":"Most of those who take the externalist approach to meaning view the matter from a _____ standpoint.","choices":["existentialist","ideological","apathetic","agnostic","secular","spiritual","religious","philosophical","pragmatic","nonreligious"],"correct":"G","answer":"H","score":0}
{"number":11216,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on moral philosophy for help. A morally impossible rule would be one that is inherently contradictory or impossible to follow consistently.\n\n- Option A: \"Lie whenever doing so is necessary to prevent a catastrophe\" could be seen as a situational rule, and while it may be controversial, it is not inherently impossible.\n- Option B: \"Always do whatever brings about the greatest happiness\" aligns with utilitarian principles and is not inherently impossible, though it may be difficult to apply in practice.\n- Option C: \"Always assert what you don’t think to be the case\" is inherently contradictory because it requires one to always lie, which undermines the very concept of assertion and truth-telling.\n\nTherefore, the correct answer is:\nAnswer: C","question":"An example of a morally impossible rule would be:","choices":["lie whenever doing so is necessary to prevent a catastrophe.","always do whatever brings about the greatest happiness.","always assert what you don’t think to be the case.","all of the above."],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11217,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the provided context and Hobbes' own writings for help. According to Hobbes, felicity is not a state of having no unfulfilled desires or tranquility but rather \"a continual progress of the desire from one object to another.\"\nAnswer: G","question":"Hobbes describes felicity as:","choices":["the absence of desire.","a state of constant dissatisfaction.","a state of constant change.","the absence of progress.","a state of satisfaction with one's current state.","the fulfilment of all desires.","a continual progress of desire from one object to another.","the ability to control one's desires.","a state of tranquility.","a state of contemplation."],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11218,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Elizabeth Anscombe, in her work \"Modern Moral Philosophy,\" argues that the notion of moral obligation is derived from the concept of divine law, which historically comes from a theological context.\nAnswer: H","question":"Anscombe claims that the notion of moral obligation is derived from the concept of:","choices":["preference.","natural law.","self-interest.","maximizing utility.","ethical relativism.","personal desire.","positive law.","divine law.","societal norms.","consequentialism."],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":11219,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Richard Brandt is known for his defense of rule utilitarianism, which makes rightness a function of ideal rules that would lead to the best consequences if generally followed.\nAnswer: G","question":"The version of utilitarianism that Brandt defends makes rightness a function of:","choices":["the amount of harm caused by an action.","whether or not one’s maxim can be universalized.","the moral character of the person performing the action.","the distribution of wealth in society.","the consequences of particular acts.","the intentions behind the action.","ideal rules.","the preferences of the individual.","the total amount of happiness in society.","the actual and recognized rules of society."],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11220,"response":"Explanation: Let's construct a complete truth table for the argument and determine its validity.\n\nThe premises are:\n1. \\( J \\equiv \\neg K \\)\n2. \\( J \\lor L \\)\n3. \\( \\neg K \\)\n\nThe conclusion is:\n\\( L \\)\n\nWe need to evaluate all possible truth values for \\( J \\), \\( K \\), and \\( L \\):\n\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{c|c|c||c|c|c|c}\nJ & K & L & J \\equiv \\neg K & J \\lor L & \\neg K & L\\\\\n\\hline\nT & T & T & F & T & F & T\\\\\nT & T & F & F & T & F & F\\\\\nT & F & T & T & T & T & T\\\\\nT & F & F & T & T & T & F\\\\\nF & T & T & T & T & F & T\\\\\nF & T & F & T & F & F & F\\\\\nF & F & T & F & T & T & T\\\\\nF & F & F & F&  F&  T&  F\\\\\n\\end{array}\n\\]\n\nNow, let's analyze the rows where all premises are true:\n\n1. \\( J = T, K = F, L = T \\):\n   - \\( J \\equiv \\neg K = T \\)\n   - \\( J \\lor L = T \\)\n   - \\( \\neg K = T \\)\n   - Conclusion \\( L = T \\) (True)\n\n2. \\( J = T, K = F, L = F \\):\n   - \\( J \\equiv \\neg K = T \\)\n   - \\( J \\lor L = T \\)\n   - \\( \\neg K = T \\)\n   - Conclusion \\( L = F \\) (False)\n\nIn the second row above, all premises are true but the conclusion is false. This makes the argument invalid.\n\nAnswer: A","question":" Construct a complete truth table for the following argument. Then, using the truth table, determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\nJ ≡ ~K\nJ ∨ L\n~K / L","choices":["Invalid. Counterexample when J is true and K and L are false","Valid. No counterexample exists.","Valid","Invalid. Counterexample when J and K are true and L is false","Invalid. Counterexample when J and K are false and L is true","Invalid. Counterexample when J and L are true and K is false","Invalid. Counterexample when all are false.","Invalid. Counterexample when L is true and J and K are false","Invalid. Counterexample when K and L are true and J is false","Invalid. Counterexample when K is true and J and L are false"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11221,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The formula given is ~(A ⊃ B) • (B ⊃ ~E). \n\n1. The expression A ⊃ B means \"If Marina reads a Percy Jackson book, then Izzy plays Minecraft.\"\n2. The negation of this, ~(A ⊃ B), means \"It is not the case that if Marina reads a Percy Jackson book, then Izzy plays Minecraft.\"\n3. The expression B ⊃ ~E means \"If Izzy plays Minecraft, then Ashleigh does not stop by.\"\n\nPutting these together:\n- It's not the case that Marina's reading a Percy Jackson book entails that Izzy plays Minecraft.\n- If Izzy plays Minecraft, Ashleigh does not stop by.\n\nThis matches option E:\nAnswer: E","question":" Use the following key to translate the given formula of PL to natural, English sentences.\nA: Marina reads a Percy Jackson book.\nB: Izzy plays Minecraft.\nC: Emily stops working.\nD: Russell makes dinner.\nE: Ashleigh stops by.\n~(A ⊃ B) • (B ⊃ ~E)","choices":["It's not true that Marina reading a Percy Jackson book causes Izzy to play Minecraft, but it is true that if Izzy plays Minecraft, Ashleigh won't stop by.","It's not true that Marina reads a Percy Jackson book only when Izzy plays Minecraft, but Izzy plays Minecraft only when Ashleigh stops by.","Marina's reading a Percy Jackson book has no effect on whether Izzy plays Minecraft, but if Izzy does play Minecraft, Ashleigh will not stop by.","If Marina reads a Percy Jackson book, then Izzy doesn't play Minecraft, but if Izzy does play Minecraft, Ashleigh won't stop by.","It's not the case that Marina's reading a Percy Jackson book entails that Izzy plays Minecraft, but Izzy's playing Minecraft does entail that Ashleigh doesn't stop by.","Marina's reading a Percy Jackson book does not entail that Izzy plays Minecraft, but Izzy plays Minecraft provided that Ashleigh doesn't stop by.","If Marina doesn't read a Percy Jackson book, then Izzy doesn't play Minecraft, and Izzy's playing Minecraft means Ashleigh does stop by.","Marina reading a Percy Jackson book doesn't entail Izzy playing Minecraft, but if Izzy doesn't play Minecraft, Ashleigh stops by.","Marina's reading a Percy Jackson book entails that Izzy plays Minecraft, and if Izzy plays Minecraft, Ashleigh stops by.","If Marina doesn't read a Percy Jackson book, then Izzy plays Minecraft, which entails that Ashleigh doesn't stop by."],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11222,"response":"Explanation: Let's break down the given arguments in predicate logic step by step:\n\n1. \\( Dh \\supset \\neg Pt \\): If my headache (Dh) is a dualist state, then your tickle (Pt) is not a physical state.\n2. \\( (\\forall x)Px \\lor (\\forall x)Mx \\): Either everything is physical (Px) or everything is mental (Mx).\n3. \\( \\neg Mb \\): My broken toe (Mb) is not a mental state.\n4. Conclusion: \\( \\neg Dh \\): My headache is not a dualist state.\n\nNow, let's match these statements to the English interpretations provided:\n\nA. If my headache is dualist state, then your tickle is not a physical state. Either everything is physical or everything is mental. But my broken toe is not a mental state. So my headache is not a dualist state.\n\nThis interpretation correctly matches the logical structure of the given arguments:\n- The first statement corresponds to \\( Dh \\supset \\neg Pt \\).\n- The second statement corresponds to \\( (\\forall x)Px \\lor (\\forall x)Mx \\).\n- The third statement corresponds to \\( \\neg Mb \\).\n- The conclusion corresponds to \\( \\neg Dh \\).\n\nAnswer: A","question":" Select the best English interpretation of the given arguments in predicate logic.\nDh ⊃ ~Pt\n(∀x)Px ∨ (∀x)Mx\n~Mb\t/ ~Dh","choices":["If my headache is dualist state, then your tickle is not a physical state. Either everything is physical or everything is mental. But my broken toe is not a mental state. So my headache is not a dualist state.","If my headache is a physical state, then your tickle is not a physical state. Either everything is physical or everything is mental. But my broken toe is not a mental state. So my headache is not a dualist state.","If my headache is dualist state, then your tickle is not a physical state. Either everything is physical or everything is not mental. But my broken toe is not a mental state. So my headache is not a dualist state.","If my headache is dualist state, then your tickle is a physical state. Either everything is physical or everything is mental. But my broken toe is not a mental state. So my headache is not a dualist state.","If my headache is dualist state, then your tickle is not a physical state. Everything is either physical or mental. But my broken toe is not a mental state. So my headache is not a dualist state.","If my headache is dualist state, then your tickle is not a physical state. If everything is physical then everything is mental. But my broken toe is not a mental state. So my headache is not a dualist state.","If my headache is a dualist state, then your tickle is a mental state. Either everything is physical or everything is mental. But my broken toe is not a mental state. So my headache is not a dualist state.","If my headache is in a dualist state, then your tickle is not a physical state. Everything is either physical or mental. But my broken toe is not a physical state. So my headache is not a dualist state.","If my headache is dualist state, then your tickle is a physical state. Either everything is physical or everything is mental. But my broken toe is a mental state. So my headache is not a dualist state."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11223,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"Some blue herons migrate\" can be translated into predicate logic using existential quantifiers. Let Hx represent \"x is a heron,\" Bx represent \"x is blue,\" and Mx represent \"x migrates.\" The correct translation should state that there exists at least one x such that x is a blue heron and x migrates.\n\nThe correct translation is:\n(∃x)[(Hx • Bx) • Mx]\n\nAnswer: D","question":" Select the best translation into predicate logic:: Some blue herons migrate.","choices":["(∀x)[(Mx • Bx) ⊃ Hx]","(∀x)[(Hx • Bx) • Mx]","(∀x)[(Hx • Mx) • Bx]","(∃x)[(Hx • Bx) • Mx]","(∃x)[(Hx • Bx) ⊃ Mx]","(∃x)[(Bx • Hx) ⊃ Mx]","(∀x)[(Hx • Bx) ⊃ Mx]","(∃x)[(Bx • Mx) ⊃ Hx]","(∀x)[(Hx • Mx) ⊃ Bx]"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11224,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The given proposition is (∀x)[Ax ⊃ (∃y)(Hy • Bxy)], which translates to \"For every x, if x is an apartment, then there exists a y such that y is a house and x is bigger than y.\" This means that every apartment is bigger than some house.\n\nAnswer: F","question":" Select the best English interpretation of the given proposition, using the following translation key: Ax: x is an apartment Hx: x is a house Lx: x is large Bxy: x is bigger than y (∀x)[Ax ⊃ (∃y)(Hy • Bxy)]","choices":["Some house is smaller than every apartment.","Every house is bigger than some apartment.","Some apartments are bigger than all houses.","Some apartments are smaller than all houses.","Some house is bigger than every apartment.","Every apartment is bigger than some house.","All apartments are smaller than some house.","Every apartment is smaller than some house.","All houses are smaller than some apartment.","Every house is bigger than all apartments."],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":11225,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. In a conditional proposition of the form \"P only if Q\", the antecedent is \"P\" and the consequent is \"Q\". Here, \"The university raises tuition\" is the antecedent, and \"both the governor approves of it and the board of trustees recommends it\" is the consequent.\nAnswer: H","question":"Identify the antecedent of the following conditional proposition: The university raises tuition only if both the governor approves of it and the board of trustees recommends it.","choices":["The board of trustees does not recommend it.","The governor approves of it.","The board of trustees recommends it.","The governor disapproves of it and the board of trustees does not recommend it.","The governor approves of it and the board of trustees recommends it.","The university does not raise tuition.","Both the governor and the board of trustees do not approve of it.","The university raises tuition.","The governor disapproves of it.","The governor approves of it or the board of trustees recommends it."],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":11226,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"Either England's importing beef is a necessary condition for France's subsidizing agriculture or China's promoting human rights is not a sufficient condition for South Africa's supplying diamonds\" can be broken down into two parts:\n\n1. \"England's importing beef is a necessary condition for France's subsidizing agriculture\": This can be symbolized as \\( F \\supset E \\) (if France subsidizes agriculture, then England imports beef).\n2. \"China's promoting human rights is not a sufficient condition for South Africa's supplying diamonds\": This can be symbolized as \\( \\neg (C \\supset S) \\).\n\nCombining these with an \"or\" (\\( \\lor \\)) between them, we get:\n\\[ (F \\supset E) \\lor \\neg (C \\supset S) \\]\n\nThe correct answer matches this formula.\nAnswer: C","question":" Which of the given formulas of PL is the best symbolization of the following sentence?\nEither England's importing beef is a necessary condition for France's subsidizing agriculture or China's promoting human rights is not a sufficient condition for South Africa's supplying diamonds.","choices":["(E ⊃ F) ∨ ~(S ⊃ C)","(F ≡ E) ∨ ~(C ⊃ S)","(F ⊃ E) ∨ ~(C ⊃ S)","(E ≡ F) ∨ (C ⊃ S)","(E ≡ F) ∨ ~(C ≡ S)","(F ⊃ E) ∨ (C ≡ S)","(E ⊃ F) ∨ (C ≡ S)","(~E ⊃ F) ∨ ~(C ⊃ S)","(E ≡ F) ∨ (~C ⊃ S)","(E ⊃ F) ∨ ~(C ⊃ S)"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11227,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The statement \"Not all lobsters are red\" can be translated into predicate logic as the negation of the statement \"All lobsters are red.\" In predicate logic, \"All lobsters are red\" is represented as \\((∀x)(Lx ⊃ Rx)\\), where \\(Lx\\) means \"x is a lobster\" and \\(Rx\\) means \"x is red.\" Therefore, \"Not all lobsters are red\" would be the negation of this statement: \\(~(∀x)(Lx ⊃ Rx)\\).\n\nAnswer: A","question":" Select the best translation into predicate logic: Not all lobsters are red.","choices":["~(∀x)(Lx ⊃ Rx)","(∀x)(~Lx • Rx)","(∀x)(Lx ⊃ ~Rx)","(∃x)(~Lx • Rx)","~(∀x)(Lx • Rx)","(∃x)(Lx • ~Rx)","~(∃x)(Lx • Rx)","(∃x)(Lx ⊃ ~Rx)","~(∀x)(~Lx ⊃ Rx)","~(∃x)(Lx ⊃ Rx)"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11228,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. Dershowitz's argument revolves around the idea that if extreme measures like torture are to be used, they should be done with accountability and authorization from the highest-level officials to ensure transparency and responsibility. This is analogous to his discussion about shooting down hijacked planes on 9/11, which he uses to illustrate that such critical decisions should not be made lightly or without proper oversight.\n\nAnswer: J","question":" Dershowitz discusses the hypothetical case where the hijacked planes of 9/11 must be shot down to argue that important decisions like these","choices":["should always be made by a single person to ensure accountability.","are often influenced by personal bias.","should be made by the military without civilian interference.","should be made by a committee of experts.","can be avoided through diplomatic negotiations.","have no objective answer.","none of the above","are not worth the moral cost.","often have to be made quickly and without immediate authorization.","should be made with visibility and accountability by the highest-level officials."],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":11229,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics for help. According to Peter Singer, the principle of equality requires that we give equal consideration to the interests of all beings affected by our actions, regardless of their species or other characteristics. This does not necessarily mean identical treatment, but rather that the interests of all should be weighed equally.\n\nAnswer: F","question":" According to Singer, the principle of equality requires","choices":["differential indifference.","unequal consideration.","identical consideration.","identical indifference.","unequal treatment.","equal consideration.","equal treatment.","identical treatment.","differential treatment.","differential consideration."],"correct":"I","answer":"F","score":0}
{"number":11230,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy and social theory for help. Ernest van den Haag is known for his strong support of the death penalty, making him a retentionist (someone who supports the retention of capital punishment).\nAnswer: H","question":" Van den Haag is","choices":["a capitalist.","a feminist.","an anarchist.","a socialist.","a distributionist.","a minimalist.","an abolitionist.","a retentionist.","a pacifist.","a humanitarian."],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":11231,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy and theology for help. According to Aquinas, \"unnatural\" sexual acts are those that go against the natural purpose of sex, which is procreation. Therefore, Corvino's reading would interpret \"unnatural\" sexual acts as those that are deliberately non-procreative.\nAnswer: I","question":" In Corvino's reading of Aquinas, \"unnatural\" sexual acts are those that are","choices":["performed outside of marriage","non-consensual.","practiced among adolescents","not leading to emotional fulfillment","not accepted by societal norms","deliberately pro-creative.","involving multiple partners","uncommonly practiced among adults.","deliberately non-procreative.","not endorsed by religious institutions"],"correct":"B","answer":"I","score":0}
{"number":11232,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher, argues that the ethics of killing an animal painlessly depend on whether the animal has a preference for continuing to live. He suggests that animals without such preferences (due to lack of self-awareness) might not be wronged by painless killing. However, he acknowledges the complexity and variability of these ethical considerations.\n\nGiven this context, the best answer is:\nAnswer: G","question":" In Singer's view, the question of when it's wrong to painlessly kill an animal is one","choices":["that is irrelevant as it is never wrong to painlessly kill an animal.","that is only wrong if the animal is a pet.","that is entirely dependent on the species of the animal.","that is dependent on the cultural norms of a society.","that is ethically unimportant.","that is only applicable to endangered species.","to which we need give no precise answer.","that cannot be answered, vaguely or precisely.","to which we need to give a precise answer.","that should be answered on a case-by-case basis."],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11233,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on climate ethics for help. Stephen Gardiner's work on climate change ethics discusses \"the fragmentation of agency\" as the vast number of individuals and agents who contribute to climate change, making it difficult to assign responsibility and take collective action.\nAnswer: C","question":" In the context of Gardiner's article, \"the fragmentation of agency\" refers to what?","choices":["an agent's inability to acknowledge his or her contribution to climate change","the fragmentation of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions across generations","the vast number of individuals and agents who contribute to climate change","the idea that it's not rational for each individual to restrict his or her own pollution"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11234,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on environmental ethics for help. According to Baxter, the goal is not an environment free from all pollution but rather an optimal state of pollution that balances human health and well-being.\nAnswer: I","question":" In Baxter's view, the first and foremost step toward a solution of our environmental problems is a clear recognition that our objective is not pure air or water but rather","choices":["the introduction of new species to balance the ecosystem.","maintaining current levels of pollution.","an overall maximally clean environment.","the total elimination of harmful species.","some maximal state of pollution.","the eradication of all pollution.","an environment free from human interference.","a state of pollution that supports human health and well-being.","some optimal state of pollution.","the preservation of all living species."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":11235,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on John Locke for help. Locke's philosophy is often associated with natural law theory, which posits that morality is grounded in human nature and reason. This is evident in his works such as \"Two Treatises of Government,\" where he discusses natural rights and laws.\n\nAnswer: J","question":" Locke can be thought of as accepting a","choices":["theory of existentialism.","version of utilitarianism.","theory of subjectivism.","Kantian theory.","version of virtue ethics.","version of consequentialism.","Hegelian philosophy.","Nietzschean perspective.","concept of moral relativism.","natural law conception of morality."],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":11236,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. According to the provided context, Singer argues that the principle of equality is not about an actual description of equality among humans but rather a moral prescription on how we should treat humans. He emphasizes that equality is a moral ideal, not a factual assertion.\n\nAnswer: E","question":" In Singer's understanding, the principle of the equality of human beings is","choices":["a description of an alleged actual equality among humans.","a description of an alleged equality among all living beings.","a prescription of how we should treat nonhuman animals.","a description of an alleged inequality among all living beings.","a prescription of how we should treat humans.","a description of an alleged actual inequality among humans.","a description of an alleged actual superiority of humans over nonhuman animals.","a prescription of how we should treat both human and nonhuman animals equally.","a prescription of how we should treat nonhuman animals differently.","a prescription of how we should treat the environment."],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11237,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the context provided in the original passage. Sinnott-Armstrong argues that individual actions, such as driving for fun, do not have a significant impact on global warming and therefore individuals do not have a moral obligation to avoid such actions. This implies that just because the government has a moral obligation to address an issue, it does not necessarily mean that individuals have the same obligation.\n\nAnswer: B","question":" According to Sinnott-Armstrong, the fact your government morally ought to do something","choices":["does not prove that government officials ought to promote it.","does not prove that you ought to do it.","proves that you ought not to do it.","proves that you ought to do it, too."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11238,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the provided context and Callahan's arguments in the article \"When Self Determination Runs Amok.\" Callahan systematically critiques arguments for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, focusing on moral and ethical considerations rather than empirical findings. He argues that even if there are no reported abuses or coercive tendencies, this does not address the fundamental moral issues surrounding euthanasia.\n\nAnswer: E","question":" Callahan cites the Oregon Death with Dignity Legal Defense and the Education Center's finding that \"after four full years .. there have been no missteps, abuses or coercive tendencies\" regarding laws permitting euthanasia. In response he argues that","choices":["the findings are suspect because the study was performed by advocates of euthanasia.","other studies have found contrary results.","the study is biased as it was conducted in Oregon, a state with legalized euthanasia.","they can't know this to be true without an anonymous survey.","even if the finding is true, it is irrelevant to the moral status of euthanasia.","the results are irrelevant as they do not consider the psychological impact on the families involved.","the findings are inaccurate as the study only covers a short period.","the findings are misleading as they do not reflect the global perspective on euthanasia.","the study lacks credibility as it was not peer-reviewed."],"correct":"D","answer":"E","score":0}
{"number":11239,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Taoism for help. In Taoist philosophy, \"ziran\" (自然) is often translated as \"spontaneity\" or \"naturalness.\" It refers to the natural state of things, acting in accordance with their inherent nature without external influence or artificial intervention.\nAnswer: H","question":"Zhuangzi describes a state as ziran, which means which of the following?","choices":["Compassion","Enlightenment","Non-action","Selflessness","Balance","Thoughtfulness","Meditation","Spontaneity","Harmony","Persistence"],"correct":"H","answer":"H","score":1}
{"number":11240,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on world religions and mythology for help. The goddess known as the Holy Mother of Mount Fairy Peach is associated with Chinese mythology. She is often linked to Taoist traditions and folklore in China.\nAnswer: A","question":" Where did people believe in the goddess known as Holy Mother of Mount Fairy Peach?","choices":["China","Silla","Goguryeo","Joseon"],"correct":"B","answer":"A","score":0}
{"number":11241,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Vedic literature for help. Ghosa, Apala, and Lopamudra are all known as female poets in the early Vedas.\nAnswer: B","question":" Ghosa, Apala and Lopamurda, all named in the early Vedas, are which of the following?","choices":["Female dancers","Female poets","Female goddesses","Female rulers","Female artisans","Female physicians","Female princesses","Female saints","Female warriors"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11242,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad was declared a prophet by the archangel Gabriel (Jibril in Arabic). Gabriel is believed to have appeared to Muhammad and delivered the first revelation from God, marking the beginning of his prophethood.\n\nAnswer: I","question":" Who declared Muhammad a prophet?","choices":["Ali","Abu Bakr","Khadijah","Uthman","Abu Talib","Waraqah","Umar","Bilal","Gabriel","Aisha"],"correct":"F","answer":"I","score":0}
{"number":11243,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the context provided in the initial information. \"Svetambara\" is a term in Jainism that means \"white-clad,\" referring to the practice of wearing white clothes by its ascetics.\nAnswer: J","question":" What does \"Svetambara\" mean?","choices":["\"Dark-clad\"","\"Sun-clad\"","\"Earth-clad\"","\"Sky-clad\"","\"Fire-clad\"","\"Naked\"","\"Light-clad\"","\"Water-clad\"","\"Clothed\"","\"White-clad\""],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":11244,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Jewish texts for help. The Mishnah is the first major written collection of Jewish oral traditions. The rabbinical commentaries produced after the Mishnah are called the Gemara. Together, the Mishnah and the Gemara make up the Talmud.\nAnswer: G","question":" What are the rabbinical commentaries produced after the Mishnah called?","choices":["Midrash","Tanakh","Zohar","Yeshiva","Haftarah","Torah","Gemarah","Haggadah","Septuagint","Talmud"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11245,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ancient Greek philosophy for help. The major shift by Greek philosophers who rejected the anthropomorphic view of the divine occurred during the late sixth century BCE. This period saw philosophers like Xenophanes criticizing the traditional anthropomorphic depictions of gods and promoting a more rational and abstract understanding of the divine.\n\nAnswer: A","question":" When was the major shift by Greek philosophers who rejected the anthropomorphic view of the divine?","choices":["Late Sixth Century BCE","Late Second Century BCE","Early Fifth Century BCE","Late Fourth Century BCE","Early First Century BCE","Early Third Century BCE","Fourth and Third Century BCE","Mid Seventh Century BCE","Early Sixth Century BCE","Second and First Century BCE"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11246,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The notice from the Hyatt Regency Hotel states that they are pleased to confirm a reservation, but then adds that it will be held on a space-available basis. This is contradictory because confirming a reservation typically implies a guaranteed spot, whereas \"space-available basis\" suggests it is not guaranteed. This contradiction makes it an example of inconsistency.\nAnswer: D","question":"Notice from the Hyatt Regency Hotel in New Orleans: We are pleased to confirm your reservation. It will be held on a space-available basis.","choices":["Equivocation","Affirming the Consequent","Gambler's Fallacy","Inconsistency"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11247,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy of \"ignorance of refutation\" involves causing confusion during refutation due to a lack of ability to engage in proper refutation, whether real or feigned.\nAnswer: B","question":"Which of the following explanations best fits the fallacy of ignorance of refutation?","choices":["asserting an argumentative opponent has taken an easily defeated position, which the opponent has not really taken, defeating the position, and acting as if you've done significant damage to that person's overall argument.","causing confusion during refutation because of a real or feigned lack of the ability to engage in refutation","characterizing an opposing argument in such a way to make it or its consequences appear to be ridiculous","arguing an action should be taken based only on the need to be loyal to someone or to a group"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11248,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The straw person fallacy involves misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack. The genetic fallacy involves judging something as good or bad based on its origin. The irrelevant conclusion fallacy, also known as ignoratio elenchi, occurs when the premises of an argument are irrelevant to the conclusion. Given the context of the question, the correct answer is irrelevant conclusion.\nAnswer: C","question":"When someone tries to support a proposition with information that really has nothing to do with the claim being made, that person has probably committed which of the following fallacies?","choices":["straw person","genetic fallacy","irrelevant conclusion"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11249,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy of \"poisoning the well\" involves discrediting a source of evidence by attacking the source's character or reliability, without any relevant connection to the actual evidence presented.\nAnswer: A","question":"Which of the following best describes the fallacy of poisoning the well?","choices":["a way of suppressing evidence that eliminates a source of evidence from consideration by claiming the source is flawed, when there is no true relationship between the alleged flaw and the reliability of the source","arguing that a claim should be accepted based on evidence that is not presented, but asserted to be well known or obvious.","arguing something should be done based only on evidence that it's been done that way in the past, or should be believed only because it's been believed for a long time.","reasoning that a claim is true based only on the evidence that it has been made so often."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11250,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logic and critical thinking for help. Whether someone is hypocritical regarding her claims does not affect the truth of the claims themselves. The truth of a claim is independent of the character or behavior of the person making the claim.\nAnswer: A","question":"Whether someone is hypocritical regarding her claims is...","choices":["Irrelevant to the truth of the claims","Only relevant if the person is a public figure","Only valid if the person is conscious of their hypocrisy","A sign that the person is untrustworthy","Direct evidence of the person's lying tendencies","Evidence that the claims are false","Relevant only in philosophical discussions","A proof that the person lacks integrity","Irrelevant to her character","Relevant only in court"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11251,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on ethics and philosophy for help. Charles L. Stevenson, a prominent figure in emotivism, argues that moral statements are expressions of emotional attitudes rather than objective truths. When faced with the objection that his theory does not account for objective, a priori goodness, Stevenson responds by claiming he does not understand such a property.\nAnswer: A","question":"How does Stevenson respond to the objection that his theory does not account for the kind of goodness that is objective and is known a priori?","choices":["He claims he does not understand such a property.","He claims that his theory is still in the process of development.","None of the above.","He claims to have proven that such a property does not exist.","He claims that the objection is irrelevant to his theory.","He claims that such a property is subjective, not objective.","He claims that the objection is based on a misunderstanding.","He claims to have offered an account of just such a property.","He does not respond to the objection.","He claims that his theory does account for this kind of goodness."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11252,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. G.E. Moore is known for his critique of the naturalistic fallacy, which he argues many past philosophers committed when they tried to define \"good\" in terms of natural properties.\nAnswer: D","question":"When it comes to defining good, Moore claims that many past philosophers are guilty of:","choices":["the false dilemma fallacy.","the appeal to authority fallacy.","the straw man fallacy.","the naturalistic fallacy.","the ad hominem fallacy.","begging the question.","the slippery slope fallacy.","the red herring fallacy.","circular reasoning.","the hasty generalization fallacy."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11253,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Susan Wolf, a prominent philosopher, argues that morality does not provide a comprehensive guide to conduct because she believes that there are other aspects of life, such as personal projects and relationships, that are also important. Therefore, the correct answer is:\nAnswer: D","question":"Wolf claims that morality:","choices":["is merely a cultural artifact.","is not really relevant to our lives.","provides a comprehensive guide to conduct.","none of the above."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11254,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Joseph Butler, an 18th-century philosopher and theologian, argued that acting virtuously consists of acting in accordance with our highest inward principle, which he identified as conscience.\nAnswer: B","question":"In Butler’s view, acting virtuously consists of acting in accordance with:","choices":["all of our inward principles.","our highest inward principle.","the principles dictated by law.","the commands of God.","the principles of our elders.","the principles of society.","our weakest inward principle.","our strongest inward principle.","the principles of our peers."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11255,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. The question is about the limitations of an internal perspective and why it prevents us from determining the usefulness, truth, or value of our own perspective. The key issue here is that any standard we use to evaluate our perspective would itself be part of that same internal perspective, making it circular and self-referential.\n\nAnswer: B","question":"If the world that we individually perceive is limited to an internal perspective, then there is no way that we could determine whether our own perspective is useful, true, or valuable because:","choices":["without limiting our perspective to an internal dreamworld, we cannot achieve any objective, external knowledge of the real world.","whatever we appeal to in order to prove that our perspective is right itself would be part of the standard we use in evaluating that perspective.","we know whether our internal perspective is correct only by comparing it with an objective, external perspective (the \"real\" world).","our individual perspective is inherently biased and therefore cannot be trusted.","scientific research that reveals facts about the world would cause us to challenge our perceptions in a dreamworld of our own making.","we are unable to fully comprehend the complexity of the world from an internal perspective.","we can only perceive the world through our senses, which may be flawed or limited.","our perception of the world is shaped by our experiences and therefore cannot be compared to others' perceptions.","our internal perspective is influenced by our emotions, which may distort our perception of the world.","we can never fully understand the world because our perceptions are limited."],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11256,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Ross's ethical theory emphasizes that we have an intuitive understanding of our moral obligations, which he calls \"prima facie duties.\" This means that we recognize these duties directly through moral intuition rather than through observation, inference, or external teachings.\n\nAnswer: C","question":"Ross claims that we learn of our prima facie duties:","choices":["by observing the consequences of our actions.","by apprehending general principles, and then inferring the prima facie rightness of particular acts.","by intuitively understanding moral obligations.","through legal regulations and laws.","by seeing the prima facie rightness of particular acts, and then apprehending general principles.","through societal norms and cultural values.","from the moral judgments we make in various situations.","from the explicit moral instruction we receive as children.","by proving them philosophically.","from religious teachings or scriptures."],"correct":"E","answer":"C","score":0}
{"number":11257,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The formula (~B • E) ⊃ D translates to \"If it is not the case that Izzy plays Minecraft and Ashleigh stops by, then Russell makes dinner.\" This matches option A.\nAnswer: A","question":" Use the following key to translate the given formula of PL to natural, English sentences.\nA: Marina reads a Percy Jackson book.\nB: Izzy plays Minecraft.\nC: Emily stops working.\nD: Russell makes dinner.\nE: Ashleigh stops by.\n(~B • E) ⊃ D","choices":["If it's not the case that both Izzy plays Minecraft and Ashleigh stops by then Russell makes dinner.","If it's both not the case that Izzy plays Minecraft and Ashleigh stops by then Russell makes dinner.","Izzy playing Minecraft and Ashleigh stopping by entails that Russell makes dinner.","Russell's making dinner is a sufficient condition for Izzy not playing Minecraft and Ashleigh stopping by."],"correct":"B","answer":"A","score":0}
{"number":11258,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The statement \"No artifacts are people\" can be translated into predicate logic as \"For all x, if x is an artifact, then x is not a person.\" This can be symbolized as (∀x)(Ax ⊃ ~Px), where Ax means \"x is an artifact\" and Px means \"x is a person.\"\n\nAnswer: F","question":" Select the best translation into predicate logic: No artifacts are people.","choices":["(∀x)(~Ax ⊃ Px)","(∀x)(Px ⊃ ~Ax)","(∀x)(~Ax • Px)","~Aa","(∀x)(Px ⊃ Ax)","(∀x)(Ax ⊃ ~Px)","~Pa","(∀x)(Px • Ax)","~Ap","(∀x)(Ax • ~Px)"],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":11259,"response":"Explanation: Let's construct a truth table for the given argument and analyze its validity.\n\nThe argument is:\n1. \\( M \\lor N \\)\n2. \\( \\neg M \\cdot O \\)\n3. Conclusion: \\( N \\)\n\nWe need to determine if the conclusion \\( N \\) follows from the premises.\n\nLet's create a truth table for all possible truth values of \\( M \\), \\( N \\), and \\( O \\):\n\n\\[\n\\begin{array}{c|c|c||c|c|c}\nM & N & O & M \\lor N & \\neg M & \\neg M \\cdot O & Conclusion: N\\\\\n\\hline\nT & T & T & T & F & F & T\\\\\nT & T & F & T & F & F & T\\\\\nT & F & T & T & F & F & F\\\\\nT & F & F & T & F & F & F\\\\\nF & T & T & T & T & T & T\\\\\nF & T & F & T & T & F & T\\\\\nF & F & T & F & T & T & F\\\\\nF & F & F \t&\tF \t&\tT \t&\tF \t&\tF\\\\\n\\end{array}\n\\]\n\nNow, let's analyze the rows where both premises are true:\n\n1. Row 5: \\( M = F, N = T, O = T \\)\n   - \\( M \\lor N = T \\)\n   - \\( \\neg M = T \\)\n   - \\( \\neg M \\cdot O = T \\)\n   - Conclusion: \\( N = T \\)\n\n2. Row 6: \\( M = F, N = T, O = F \\)\n   - \\( M \\lor N = T \\)\n   - \\( \\neg M = T \\)\n   - \\( \\neg M \\cdot O = F \\)\n   - Conclusion: \\( N = T \\)\n\n3. Row 7: \\( M = F, N = F, O = T \\)\n   - \\( M \\lor N = F \\) (Premise not satisfied)\n\n4. Row 8: \\( M = F, N = F, O = F\\)\n   - \\(M ∨ N=F\\) (Premise not satisfied)\n\nFrom the analysis above, we see that there is no row where both premises are true and the conclusion is false. Therefore, the argument is valid.\n\nAnswer: A","question":" Construct a complete truth table for the following argument. Then, using the truth table, determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\nM ∨ N\n~M · O / N","choices":["Valid","Invalid. Counterexample when M and O are true and N is false","Invalid. Counterexample when M is true and O and N are false","Invalid. Counterexample when O is true and M and N are false"],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11260,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on formal logic for help. The sentence \"If Eileen plays fiddle then Sherri sings\" can be translated into predicate logic using the implication operator (⊃). Let \"Fe\" denote \"Eileen plays fiddle\" and \"Ss\" denote \"Sherri sings\". The correct translation is \"Fe ⊃ Ss\".\nAnswer: F","question":"Select the best translation into predicate logic: If Eileen plays fiddle then Sherri sings.","choices":["Ss ∨ Fe","Fe ∨ Ss","Fe ∧ Ss","eF ⊃ Ss","Ss ∨ eF","Fe ⊃ Ss","Fe ∨ Es","eF ∧ Ss","eS ⊃ Fe"],"correct":"F","answer":"F","score":1}
{"number":11261,"response":"Explanation: Let's construct the truth table step by step to determine the validity of the argument.\n\n1. List all possible truth values for \\( O \\) and \\( P \\).\n2. Calculate the truth values for \\( O \\equiv P \\).\n3. Calculate the truth values for \\( (O \\equiv P) \\vee P \\).\n4. Calculate the truth values for \\( \\neg O \\).\n5. Calculate the truth values for \\( P \\vee \\neg O \\).\n\nHere is the complete truth table:\n\n| O | P | O ≡ P | (O ≡ P) ∨ P | ¬O | P ∨ ¬O |\n|---|---|-------|-------------|----|--------|\n| T | T |   T   |      T      |  F |    T   |\n| T | F |   F   |      F      |  F |    F   |\n| F | T |   F   |      T      |  T |    T   |\n| F | F |   T   |      T      |  T |    T   |\n\nNow, let's analyze whether the argument is valid:\n\n- The argument is valid if whenever the premise \\((O ≡ P) ∨ P\\) is true, the conclusion \\(P ∨ ¬O\\) must also be true.\n\nFrom the table:\n- When \\( (O ≡ P) ∨ P \\) is true (rows 1, 3, and 4), \\( P ∨ ¬O \\) is also true.\n- However, when \\( (O ≡ P) ∨ P \\) is false (row 2), we see that \\(P ∨ ¬O\\) is false.\n\nThus, there is no counterexample where the premise is true and the conclusion is false. Therefore, the argument is valid.\n\nAnswer: I","question":"Construct a complete truth table for the following argument. Then, using the truth table, determine whether the argument is valid or invalid. If the argument is invalid, choose an option which presents a counterexample. (There may be other counterexamples as well.)\n(O ≡ P) ∨ P / P ∨ ~O","choices":["Invalid. Counterexample when O is true and P is true","Invalid. Counterexample when O and P are false","Invalid. Counterexample when P is false and O is false","Invalid. Counterexample when both O and P are simultaneously true and false","Invalid. Counterexample when O and P are true","Invalid. Counterexample when O is true and P is false","Invalid. Counterexample when P is false and O is true","Invalid. Counterexample when P is true and O is false","Valid"],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":11262,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on cloning for help. SCNT stands for \"somatic cell nuclear transfer,\" which is a technique used in cloning.\nAnswer: B","question":" What does SCNT stand for, as used in the discussion on cloning?","choices":["somatic cellular nuclear transmission","somatic cell nuclear transfer","none of the above","specialized cell nuclear transfer","skin cell nuclear transition","somatic cell nucleotide transition","skin cell nuclear transfer","stem cell nuclear transmission","stem cell nuclear transformation","synthetic cell nuclear transfer"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11263,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Rosalind Hursthouse is a prominent figure in virtue ethics, which often emphasizes the complexity of moral decision-making and the importance of moral wisdom or phronesis (practical wisdom). She argues that moral theories do not necessarily need to provide simple, clear-cut guidance that any intelligent person could follow without deeper understanding or context. Therefore, she finds the claim that any adequate action-guiding theory must provide such clear guidance to be implausible.\n\nAnswer: I","question":" What does Hursthouse say about the claim that any adequate action-guiding (i.e., moral) theory must provide clear guidance about what ought and ought not to be done that any intelligent person could follow?","choices":["She says the claim is controversial.","She says the claim is true.","She says the claim is self-contradictory.","She says the claim is irrelevant.","She says the claim is self-evident.","She says the claim is partially true.","She says the claim is very plausible.","She says the claim is generally accepted.","She says the claim is implausible."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":11264,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the context provided and the article \"The Coddling of the American Mind\" by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt. They argue that disinviting speakers contributes to intellectual homogeneity, meaning it limits exposure to diverse viewpoints and promotes a uniformity of thought.\nAnswer: E","question":" Lukianoff and Haidt argue that the disinvitation of certain speakers","choices":["is a form of cognitive distortion.","will eventually lead to a decline in student enrollment.","will encourage students to disregard positive aspects of a person's history.","will lead to a decline in university reputation.","will only serve to promote intellectual homogeneity on college and universities.","All of the above.","is an example of mental filtering.","is a violation of the speaker's freedom of speech.","is a proactive measure to safeguard student's mental health.","will foster a culture of intolerance and narrow-mindedness on campuses."],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11265,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the provided context on euthanasia for help. According to the introduction to chapter 8, euthanasia is typically defined as the act or practice of killing or allowing someone to die.\nAnswer: D","question":" Which of the following is, according to the introduction to chapter 8, typically defined as the act or practice of killing or allowing someone to die?","choices":["murder","ethical killing","suicide","euthanasia"],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
{"number":11266,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Peter Singer's argument in \"All Animals Are Equal\" is based on the principle of equal consideration of interests, which means that the interests of all beings capable of suffering should be given equal weight, regardless of species.\nAnswer: B","question":" According to Singer, the conclusions argued for in \"all animals are equal\" flow from which of the following principles alone?","choices":["the principal principle","the principle of equal consideration","the principle of utilitarianism","the principle of speciesism","the principle of animal rights","the principle of double effect","the principle of non-violence","the principle of moral equality","the principle of minimizing suffering","the principle of maximizing happiness"],"correct":"I","answer":"B","score":0}
{"number":11267,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the provided context and articles on bioethics for help. According to Velleman, the most significant harm of the option of euthanasia is that it burdens a patient with having to justify his or her continued existence. This argument is based on the idea that legalizing euthanasia forces patients to defend their choice to live, which can be an unfair burden.\n\nAnswer: B","question":" Velleman believes that the option of euthanasia may harm some patients. What does he think is the most significant way in which this might happen?","choices":["by leading to premature termination of life before exploring all treatment options","by burdening a patient with having to justify his or her continued existence","by eliminating the patient's capacity for self-determination","by tempting a patient to undergo a painful procedure","by eliminating a patient's opportunities for self-determination","by causing psychological distress to a patient's loved ones","by potentially causing unnecessary physical pain to the patient","by undermining a patient's trust in medical professionals","by reducing a patient's chances of recovery","by creating societal pressure to opt for euthanasia"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11268,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for help. The primary goal of CBT is to change patterns of thinking or behavior that are causing people's problems, and thereby change the way they feel. This involves identifying and challenging distorted cognitions, improving emotional regulation, and developing personal coping strategies.\n\nAnswer: I","question":" The goal of cognitive-behavioral therapy is to","choices":["enhance physical strength.","reward good behavior.","develop artistic skills.","increase emotional intelligence.","maximize athletic performance.","improve memory retention.","achieve stoic wisdom.","promote spiritual growth.","build grit."],"correct":"I","answer":"I","score":1}
{"number":11269,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to the provided context from Lukianoff and Haidt's article. They argue that institutionalizing vindictive protectiveness will have several negative effects on students. Specifically, they mention that it will encourage students to think pathologically, harm their ability to learn, and imply that it will ill-prepare them for the workforce. Therefore, all of the given options are correct.\nAnswer: D","question":" According to Lukianoff and Haidt, institutionalizing vindictive protectiveness will","choices":["encourage students to think pathologically.","ill-prepare them for the workforce.","harm their ability to learn.","all of the above."],"correct":"C","answer":"D","score":0}
{"number":11270,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Michael Huemer, a contemporary philosopher, has expressed concerns about the use of the \"war\" metaphor in the context of government policies on drug use. His main worry is that this metaphor makes it difficult to think about and discuss the rights of drug users, as it frames the issue in a way that emphasizes conflict and aggression rather than individual rights and freedoms.\n\nAnswer: E","question":" Huemer worries that the employment of a \"war\" metaphor when describing government policies about drug use","choices":["does not really describe the situation well at all, since it is more like a game than a war.","diminishes the seriousness of actual wars.","masks a bad argument by analogy.","is perfectly apt.","makes it hard to think and discuss the rights of drug users.","indicates that the issue can only be solved through violent measures.","implies that the government is the enemy.","suggests that drug users are combatants."],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11271,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. According to Papadaki's discussion on objectification, the context of the relationship plays a crucial role in determining whether or not sexual objectification occurs. This suggests that mutual denial of humanity within a relationship does not automatically lead to sexual objectification; instead, it depends on the specific context and dynamics of the relationship.\n\nAnswer: C","question":" Papadaki thinks that in cases where partners in a relationship mutually deny each other's humanity that","choices":["the context of the relationship is irrelevant in determining sexual objectification.","sexual objectification occurs.","the context of the relationship will determine whether or not sexual objectification occurred.","sexual objectification is only valid in a non-mutual context.","only physical abuse qualifies as sexual objectification.","both partners are incapable of sexually objectifying each other.","there is no straightforward answer to the question of whether or not sexual objectification occurs.","sexual objectification does not occur.","the partner who denies the other's humanity is always the one who sexually objectifies.","neither partner is capable of sexual objectification."],"correct":"G","answer":"C","score":0}
{"number":11272,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on Confucian temples for help. The largest network of Confucian shrines is in China, where Confucianism originated and where the most significant and numerous temples are located, including the largest one in Qufu.\nAnswer: E","question":"Where is the largest network of Confucian shrines in the world?","choices":["Taiwan","Korea","Singapore","Indonesia","China","Philippines","Japan","Vietnam","Thailand","Malaysia"],"correct":"B","answer":"E","score":0}
{"number":11273,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The fallacy of appeal to indignation involves arguing against a position based on personal feelings rather than logical reasoning or evidence.\nAnswer: C","question":"Which of the following describes the fallacy of appeal to indignation?","choices":["presenting two options as the only possible ones when more options exist","attacking an argument by exaggerating, misrepresenting, or even completely fabricating parts of it","arguing against a position only based on personal feelings toward the position","responding to charges of wrongdoing by saying other people do the same thing","arguing that a claim is true because it has not been proven false","responding to an argument with an expression of derision instead of a counter argument","making a claim based on popularity or majority opinion instead of evidence","attacking the character or background of someone making an argument instead of his or her evidence and reasoning","making a claim seem true or false based on irrelevant information or associations"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11274,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The statement \"The universe, like a watch, must have a maker\" is an analogy that compares the universe to a watch. However, this comparison is questionable because the complexity and nature of the universe are vastly different from those of a watch. Therefore, it falls under the category of \"Questionable Analogy.\"\nAnswer: B","question":"The universe, like a watch, must have a maker.","choices":["Fallacy of Accident","Questionable Analogy","Questionable Cause","Fallacy of Composition"],"correct":"B","answer":"B","score":1}
{"number":11275,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The argument presented by Tan ah Tiat contains an inconsistency. He argues that his opium habit does no harm because he is too old to work, yet he relies on the earnings of his grandmother, which implies a dependency that contradicts his claim of harmlessness.\nAnswer: C","question":"Tan ah Tiat, forty-nine years old, a native of Kuala Lumpar, Malaysia, was charged with possession of opium. Arguing for acquittal, he told the judge that his opium habit did no harm, as he was too old to work anyway. Asked how he lived, he replied that he lived on the earnings of his grandmother.","choices":["Straw Man","False Dilemma","Inconsistency","Appeal to Authority"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11276,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logic for help. The requirement that \"each term must be used twice, no more and no less\" is specific to categorical syllogisms in traditional logic. A categorical syllogism consists of three parts: a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion, each involving three terms (major term, minor term, and middle term). Each of these terms must appear exactly twice in the syllogism.\n\nAnswer: J","question":"\"Each term must be used twice, no more and no less\" is a requirement for","choices":["a valid modus ponens","a valid modus tollens","a valid dilemma","a valid disjunctive syllogism","a valid conditional syllogism","a materially true hypothetical syllogism","an accurate deductive argument","a true disjunctive proposition","a proper logical fallacy","valid categorical syllogism"],"correct":"J","answer":"J","score":1}
{"number":11278,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. A slippery-slope argument is fallacious when it lacks a solid basis for the claim that one action will inevitably lead to another undesirable action. This means there is no good reason or evidence to support the inevitability of the progression.\nAnswer: G","question":"A slippery-slope pattern of argument is fallacious when...","choices":["There is good reason to think that doing one action will inevitably lead to another undesirable action","It is based on a logical progression","There are more than two possible results","It is based on a series of cause and effect situations","It is grounded in established facts","It is based on a hypothetical situation","There is no good reason to think that doing one action will inevitably lead to another undesirable action","There are only two possible results","There is a significant amount of evidence supporting the pattern","It is hypothetical"],"correct":"G","answer":"G","score":1}
{"number":11279,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. Jeremy Bentham, a prominent utilitarian philosopher, argued that morality is based on the principle of utility, which is the greatest happiness principle. He believed that we must first know whether something is right based on its consequences (utility) before we can determine if it conforms to God's will.\nAnswer: E","question":"Concerning the relationship between morality and theology, Bentham claims that:","choices":["God exists, but does not concern himself with matters of morality.","Morality is always aligned with God's will.","God's will can be determined independently of morality.","The concept of right and wrong is solely determined by God's will.","we must first know whether something is right before we can know whether it conforms to God’s will.","we must first know whether something conforms to God’s will before we can know that it is right.","There is no correlation between morality and theology.","God does not exist.","Morality exists independently of God's will.","God's will is not related to matters of morality."],"correct":"E","answer":"E","score":1}
{"number":11280,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. John Stuart Mill, a proponent of utilitarianism, argues that we should act in ways that maximize overall happiness or utility. However, he acknowledges that it is not always practical to calculate the consequences of every action. Instead, he suggests using \"rules of thumb\" derived from the principle of utility to guide our actions.\nAnswer: C","question":"Mill claims that in deciding how to act:","choices":["we should consult tradition.","we should always follow our personal instincts.","we should depend on rules of thumb derived from the principle of utility.","we should always act in a way that aligns with our personal values, regardless of the consequences.","we should always do what is legally required, regardless of the consequences.","we should always act in a way that benefits the most people, regardless of the consequences.","we should always do what our peers or society expects of us.","we should always calculate the expected consequences of our action.","we should always do what makes us happy in the moment.","we should consult scripture."],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11281,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Peter Singer's \"Famine, Affluence, and Morality\" for help. In his essay, Singer presents two versions of his principle: a stronger version and a weaker version. The stronger version states that we ought to prevent bad things from happening unless doing so would require sacrificing something of comparable moral importance. The weaker version states that we ought to prevent bad things from happening unless doing so would require sacrificing something morally significant.\n\nSinger argues that the stronger version is correct but acknowledges that the weaker version is more likely to be accepted by people and still leads to significant moral obligations.\n\nAnswer: A","question":"Of the two versions of the principle that Singer considers:","choices":["he considers the stronger version to be correct.","he considers the weaker version to be correct.","he proposes a third, completely different principle.","he argues that the weaker version is stronger.","he claims that they are equivalent.","he supports both the stronger and the weaker versions.","he suggests that the principles are contradictory.","he does not distinguish between the two principles.","he states that both principles are incorrect.","he ends up rejecting them both."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11282,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to Immanuel Kant, laws of nature are descriptive and determine how things will happen in the physical world. In contrast, laws of freedom are prescriptive and determine how things ought to happen in the moral realm.\nAnswer: C","question":"According to Kant, laws of nature are laws according to which __________, and laws of freedom are laws according to which __________.","choices":["nothing will happen; everything ought to happen","everything ought to happen; everything ought to happen","everything will happen; everything ought to happen","everything ought to happen; everything will happen","nothing will happen; everything will happen","nothing will happen; nothing will happen","everything will happen; everything will happen","everything ought to happen; nothing will happen","everything will happen; nothing will happen","everything ought to happen; nothing ought to happen"],"correct":"C","answer":"C","score":1}
{"number":11283,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. R.M. Hare, a moral philosopher, often discussed the concept of \"fanaticism\" in his works. He referred to people who endorse ideals without regard for whether people's interests are pursued by them as \"fanatics.\"\nAnswer: A","question":"Hare refers to people who endorse ideals without regard for whether people’s interests are pursued by them as:","choices":["fanatics.","irrationalists.","purists.","non-pragmatists.","radicals.","amoralists.","maniacs.","immoralists."],"correct":"A","answer":"A","score":1}
{"number":11284,"response":"Explanation: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on philosophy for help. According to G. E. Moore, the naturalistic fallacy is the attempt to define \"good\" in terms of natural properties, such as pleasure or desire.\nAnswer: D","question":"Moore defines the naturalistic fallacy as the view that:","choices":["everything that is natural is inherently bad.","good is identical to an unnatural property.","everything that is natural is good.","good is identical to a natural property.","natural properties and good are mutually exclusive.","everything that is good is natural.","good is a human-made concept, not natural.","natural properties are inherently evil.","all of the above.","the concept of good does not exist in nature."],"correct":"D","answer":"D","score":1}
