Lecture 8A: Vagueness, AmbiguityX2, Fallacy of Equivocation, Fallacy of Composition, Fallacy of Division

Business and Warm Up
1.  What are the most common arguments you hear to justify eating meat (from factory farmed animals)?  How do they fail?  What arguments did you come up with?
2.  Any questions about the midterm project? Be sure to justify your answers--that's the whole point of the course.
3.  Wednesday will be a "coffee shop" class.

Lecture 8A
In your teams, look at the sample claims.  Identify the common theme.  When your team has figured it out, write it on a piece of paper, jump up and down while saying "I'm a monkey! I'm a monkey!" and submit it to me.  To complete the challenge you must also create your own example.

Part 1:
A:  "Everything is love...maaaaaaaan"

B: Happiness is a continuation of happenings which are not resisted.
--Depak Chopra

C:  To think is to practice brain chemistry.
--Depak Chopra

D:  A person is a pattern of behavior, of a larger awareness.
--Depak Chopra

E:  New and Improved Formula!
--Every advertisement ever

F:  Product X "boosts your immune system and help support and maintain a healthy lifestyle."
--Every supplement ever.

G. Am I allowed to pick mushrooms?
From Oak Openings Rules and Regulations: Within the parks and public lands of the Park District, no person shall without lawful authority or privileged to do so cut down, destroy, remove, girdle, or injure a vine, bush, shrub, sapling, tree, or crop standing or growing therein, or sever, injure or destroy a product standing or growing therein or other thing attached thereto; nor shall any tree, flower, shrub, or other vegetation, or fruit or seed thereof, or soil, or rock, or mineral be removed, injured or damaged; nor shall any form of wildlife, except fish, be injured, damaged or removed without specific written permission from the Director or his/her agents. (MM)*







Vagueness:   A definition is vague it has no specific meaning for the intended audience.

Part 2A:
To win this round you must rewrite the sentences 2 reflect the (at least) 2 possible meanings.  First group to scream like monkeys and hand in their answers wins.

A:  I like her more than you.

B:  People actually eat more sushi in America than in Japan.

C:  He shot the elephant in his pajamas.

D:  Ami said on Monday he'd give an exam.

E.  Feel free to respond to my comments or disagree with me. (An actual message sent by a friend inviting me to follow him on twitter)

Part 2B:
A:  He was found by his friend.

B: Apparently my parking is quite good.  Someone left an official note on my window that said "parking fine."

C:  Vitamin E is good for aging people.

D:  Sign: Watch repairs here.

E. I'm not a big banana pancake fan.

Terms are ambiguous when they have more than one plausible interpretation.  ("Ambi" means "two"). Ambiguity comes in two flavours: syntactic and semantic.   Syntactic ambiguity (also called "amphiboly") is when the sentence structure offers more than one plausible meaning. Semantic ambiguity is when a word can have two possible meanings. Generally, context sorts outs semantic ambiguity (but not always).

Part 3:
A:  Person 1:  Everything in life happens for a reason...maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.  
Person 2:  That's ridiculous.  What's the reason for my moving my finger right now?
Person 1:  Because you had the thought "move your finger" which caused the nerves leading to your finger to fire in succession, culminating in the movement of your finger...duh.

B:  Science has discovered many laws of nature.  This surely constitutes proof that there is a God, for wherever there are laws, there must be a lawgiver.  Consequentially, God must exist as the great lawgiver of the universe. 

C:  Since, as scientists tell us, energy neither comes into being nor goes out of being, there should be no energy crisis.








Fallacy of Equivocation:  The fallacy of equivocation is when a key term in the argument isn't used with a consistent meaning throughout the premises and/or conclusion.  In other words, a term might be used differently between premises or between the premises and the conclusion.  Test hint: This is Ami's favorite fallacy.

Part 4:  
A:  Everything in the universe could not have created itself, therefore the universe also could not have created itself.  
--William Paley's Teleological Argument

B:  If everyone pursues their own best interest, societies best interests will also be served.
--Libertarianism

C:  Since everyone cares about their own individual happiness, they will also care about the aggregate happiness of society.
--J.S. Mill in Utilitarianism

D:  This dinner is going to taste delicious:  Every ingredient it's made from is delicious.
--My mom.

E:  Every person in the class was born to a mother therefore this class was born to a mother.

F:  He/She's got every quality I like in a person.  I'm sure we'll get along.






Fallacy of Composition:  (P1)  Since the parts P, Q, R which make up X have property(ies) a, b, c, then (P2) X must also have properties a, b, c.


Part 5
A:  This food tastes awful.  You must have used horrible ingredients.

B: The Seattle Seahawks were the best team in the NFL this year.  They must have the best players.

C:  The science man says there's supposed to be global warming, so why is it so cold in the D?








Fallacy of Division:  (P1)  Since some whole has property a, then (P2) it's parts (X, Y, Z) must also have property a.



No Homework...Bring me beautiful take-home midterms.

Lesson 7B: Informal Fallacies Part 1: Failures of Relevance

Informal Logical Fallacies Associated with Relevance (i.e. Failures of Relevance)

Genetic Fallacy (Main Category of Fallacy):  Arguing that a claim is true or false simply because of the origin of the claim.

E.g.,  The budget proposal was a product of the Cato Institute.  Obviously, if it's passed it will hurt the poor.

E.g.,  You can't trust the results of these studies on drug X, they were funded by Pfizer.

E.g., Obama's idea for the ACA came to him in a dream, so it must be horrible.

Ad hominem (against the person): When a claim is rejected or judged to be false based on an alleged character flaw of the person making the claim. A second form occurs whenever someone's statement or reasoning is attacked by way of a stereotype, such as a racial, sexual, or religious stereotype. A third form involves the use of circumstances of a person's life to reject his claims. Exception: denying someone's claim by calling them a liar and they have a reputation for being one. 

Examples:  Why should I believe what he says about our economy? He's not even a citizen! 

You can't accept her advice. She is so old she has no idea what goes on in today's world. 

Why would you listen to him? He's too young to have any wisdom about life. 


Type 3: Of course Senator X thinks my administration's tax proposals are bad for the country. After all, his political party lost the last election, and everyone knows that losers are jealous. 


You don't want cars to get better gas milage because you are a self-centered rich bastard who isn't affected by gas prices. All you care about it how big your engine is. 


Of course you think that people should take drugs. You work for a pharmaceutical company and you make more money if more people take drugs. 


Notice in all cases, the issue is not being addressed by bringing up reasons for or against the position, rather it is the person or their circumstances that is being criticized. 


Poisoning the Well: Pre-emptive ad hominem to discredit the opponent before they make their point. 

Eg.  "Only an ignoramus would disagree with fluoridating water." 


Tu Quoque: Another variety of ad hominem fallacy in which one person attempts to avoid the issue at hand by claiming the other person is a hypocrite. 

Examples:You're always telling us to do our homework and study but you never did your homework when you were an undergrad. 

Many Arab countries put house their prisoners in inhumane conditions. Who are they to lecture us about our prison practices? 


Argumentum Ad Populum/Bandwagon Effect: 
Ad Populum: Appeal to the people
This fallacy is committed when the arguer appeals to popular opinion to support their claim.

Eg. (Historically) Everybody agrees that group x shouldn't have equal rights, therefore they shouldn't have them.Eg. Most people agree that vitamin C cures the common cold.  Therefore, you should take it.
Eg. Most people agree that Hondas are better than Fords. 

Bandwagon Effect (variation of argument from popularity)

Often used in advertising through images of beautiful/happy people using a product...”you can be like us too!”

Appeal to Emotions: When the arguer tries to elicit feelings of pity, outrage, compassion, pride, nationalism, etc...instead of providing reasons for or against a position.

Examples:

The new PowerTangerine computer gives you the power you need. If you buy one, people will envy your power. They will look up to you and wish they were just like you. You will know the true joy of power. TangerinePower.

The new UltraSkinny diet will make you feel great. No longer be troubled by your weight. Enjoy the admiring stares of the opposite sex. Revel in your new freedom from fat. You will know true happiness if you try our diet!

Charities use this a lot in their advertising.

Give Bob a lighter sentence because he's an orphan that grew up in hardship.  Have a heart! Debatable cases: when human emotions are an important factor in the issue. 

Appeal to Force:  When the arguer essentially presents a threat of force instead of a reason for accepting a position.

Examples:  

If you don't get rid of your chemical weapons we will bomb you.Non-sequitur (missing the point): Generic catch all for arguments where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises and the premises seem to suggest a different conclusion should be drawn.

Examples:
Professor Brown is a really hard grader. Not only does he force you to attend class, participate in discussion, and do homework. He actually expects us to think about the material outside of class. So, you can believe that his class teaches students nothing about real life.

Ami likes cheese, ice cream, and yogurt.  He should eat more vegetables.

Appeal to (Unqualified) Authority (Arugmentum Ad Verecundiam—Arg. from reverence or respect):

Celebrity endorsements: Jenny McCarthy on vaccines, Oprah on psychology and medicine. 


Appeal to Tradition/Ancient Authority

Lecture 7B: Fallacies and Failures of Relevance

Business:
1.  Lecture
2.  Practice
3.  Questions about midterm.

Review of HW 7A

Informal Fallacies:  Failures of Relevance

1.  

E.g., The budget proposal was a product of the Cato Institute. Obviously, if it's passed it will hurt the poor.

A: You can't trust the results of these studies on drug X, they were funded by Pfizer.

B: Obama's idea for the ACA came to him in a dream, so it must be horrible.

C: Killing is wrong because it says so in Holy Text X.

Explanation of the Genetic Fallacy:  When a claim is supported or dismissed based on its source rather than evidence for or against the claim.

2.  

A:  Why should I believe what he says about our economy? He's not even a citizen!

B:  You can't accept her advice. She is so old she has no idea what goes on in today's world.

C:  Why would you listen to him? He's too young to have any wisdom about life.

D*:  Of course Senator X thinks my administration's tax proposals are bad for the country. After all, his political party lost the last election, and everyone knows that losers are jealous.

E*:  You don't want cars to get better gas milage because you are a self-centered rich bastard who isn't affected by gas prices. All you care about it how big your engine is.

F*:  Of course you think that people should take drugs. You work for a pharmaceutical company and you make more money if more people take drugs.

Explanation of Ad hominem (against the person): When a claim is rejected or judged to be false based on an alleged character flaw of the person making the claim. A second form occurs whenever someone's statement or reasoning is attacked by way of a stereotype, such as a racial, sexual, or religious stereotype. A third form involves the use of circumstances of a person's life to reject his claims. Exception: denying someone's claim by calling them a liar and they have a reputation for being one.

3. 

A:  Tea Party Policy on Medicaid

B:  The pastor said I shouldn't cheat on my wife but I know he's cheated on his wife many times.  Why shouldn't I cheat on mine?

C:  "You're always telling us to do our homework and study. You didn't do your homework regularly when you were in school."

D:  Many Arab countries put house their prisoners in inhumane conditions. Who are they to lecture us about our prison practices?

E:  Beyonce told all the single ladies to throw their hands up at her, but she didn't throw her hands up! I shouldn't have to throw my hands up at her.

--So why did you contribute so much to this inequity Mr Greenspan? Sit down and shut up

--Ironic, considering his monetary policies while running the Fed helped in a big way with that.
says the chief enabler of the last 30 years...

--Considering he was largely responsible for the architecture that allowed this, he really should simply close his mouth.

Explanation to Tu Quo Que:  Another variety of ad hominem fallacy in which one person attempts to avoid the issue at hand by claiming the other person is a hypocrite.

4.
A:  All Monsanto cares about is making money.  Their seeds will harm farmers livelihood.

B:  Bob is a complete moron not only that but he'd steal from his own mother.  You shouldn't believe him when he says he'll help you with the garden.

C:  The tea party is made of irrational ideological extremists.  Nobody should take their budget reform policies seriously.





Explanation of Poisoning the Well:  Pre-emptive ad hominem to discredit the source/opponent before they make their point.




5.
Type 1:
A: You should go see a chiropractor for your asthma.  The treatment is all-natural and doesn't use synthetic chemicals.

B:  This all-natural seaweed and kale juice will prevent you from getting sick.

C:  With GMOs, they take a gene from one organism and put it in another.  It ain't natural!  GMOs must be bad for you.
Horizontal Gene Transfer

D: http://www.naturalnews.com/039803_indian_black_salve_cancer_cure_herb.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/eschar.html

E.

Naturalistic Fallacy Type 1:  Health claims that are supported by the fact that a food or modality is "natural".  The fact that something is "natural" doesn't tell us one way or another whether it is safe and efficacious.  
Fun fact: The majority of companies the FDA sent warning letters to were selling "natural" products. See also study and article. 
Many "all-natural" products are in fact adulterated with real drugs (so they work).
Especially "all-natural" "male enhancement" pills.

6.  
A:  Women have smaller brains/are physically weaker so they shouldn't be equal to men.

B:  Homosexuality isn't natural, so it's wrong.

C:  Infanticide is practiced by just about every species, therefore it's morally right.
infanticide in animals

D: 




Naturalistic Fallacy Type 2:  Arguing from a descriptive claim to a value or moral claim.


7. 
Type 1:
A:  The ancient Chinese have used acupuncture for 1000s of years to cure all sorts of ailments--it must work.

B: Soup sop juice

C: Buckthorn

Type 2:
D*:  Women have always worked in the kitchen, therefore that's were they should stay.

E*:  The traditional definition of marriage both around the world and in Western Society is between a man a several wives.  Therefore, we should uphold this definition of marriage and not permit gay marriage.

F*:  The Bible says that if an unmarried woman is raped, she must marry her rapist and he must pay her father 50 shekels, therefore this is what should be done. Deuteronomy 22:28







Explanation of Argument from Tradition/Ancient Authority:  Arguing that since since something was done traditionally that it must work/be good.  (Also applies to moral arguments)

8.

B:  Everybody agrees that moving US troops into the Crimean would be a bad idea.  We shouldn't do it.

C: Most people agree that vitamin C cures the common cold. Therefore, you should take it.

D: Most people agree that Hondas are better than Fords, therefore they are.

Explanation of Ad Populum (appeal to the people):  This fallacy is committed when the arguer appeals to popular opinion to support their claim.  Exceptions are cases where popular opinion is relevant (e.g., fashion).
Bandwagon Effect (variation of argument from popularity)  Often used in advertising through images of beautiful/happy people using a product...”you can be like us too!”

9.
A.

B:  The new PowerTangerine computer gives you the power you need. If you buy one, people will envy your power. They will look up to you and wish they were just like you. You will know the true joy of power. TangerinePower.

C:  The new UltraSkinny diet will make you feel great. No longer be troubled by your weight. Enjoy the admiring stares of the opposite sex. Revel in your new freedom from fat. You will know true happiness if you try our diet!

D:  His healthcare policy is un-American:  It needs to be repealed.

E:  A true American wouldn't cut funding from our troops.  Why do you hate America? 

F:  Give Bob a lighter sentence because he's an orphan that grew up in hardship. Have a heart! 

Explanation of Appeal to Emotions: When the arguer tries to elicit feelings of pity, outrage, compassion, pride, nationalism, etc...instead of providing reasons for or against a position.  Charities use this a lot in their advertising.  Political ads use it a lot too (appeal to nationalism).  Debatable cases: when human emotions are an important factor in the issue. 

10.

A:  If you don't get rid of your suspected chemical weapons we will bomb you.

B:  If you don't do your homework, I will beat you.

Appeal to Force: When the arguer essentially presents a threat of force instead of a reason for accepting a position.

11. 

A:  Professor Brown is a really hard grader. Not only does he force you to attend class, participate in discussion, and do homework. He actually expects us to think about the material outside of class. So, you can believe that his class teaches students nothing about real life.

B:  Ami likes cheese, ice cream, and yogurt. He should eat more vegetables.

Explanation of non-sequitur (missing the point): Generic catch-all name for arguments where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises and the premises seem to suggest a different conclusion should be drawn.  Otherwise stated, if the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion and you can't classify why it's irrelevant we call it a non-sequitur.

12.

A: 

Appeal to (Unqualified) Authority (Arugmentum Ad Verecundiam—Arg. from reverence or respect):  When someone supports their claim by appealing to a non-expert on the subject.

Celebrity endorsements: Jenny McCarthy on vaccines, Oprah on psychology and medicine, Dr. vs medical researcher.







Midterm
1.  How to ensure good quality and successful group work.
2.  Questions?


HW 7B:
A:  Pick 1 fallacy and make a meme.
1.  Go to http://memegenerator.net/
2.  Click on "Images".
3.  Choose your meme.
4.  Create your meme.

B:  Challenge: Construct an argument for the moral permissibility of factory farms for animal meat without committing any fallacies.

Lecture 7A: Intro to Conditional Reasoning

Business:
1.  Tests handed back last 15min of class + review of trouble sections.
2.  Take-Home Midterm Assigned TODAY.  DUE Wed. 12th at Midnight.  Form groups of 3 or 4.
3.  Blog and Podcast Reviews:  The clock is ticking!

Warm Up

Conditional Reasoning Part 1
Intro:  Bonus Question, The Perfect Vending Machine, Affirming the Consequent

Example 1
Version 1
(P1)  If I put money in the vending machine then I get a can of coke.
(P2)  I put money in the vending machine.
(C)  ?

Version 2
(P1)  If I put money in the vending machine then I get a can of coke.
(P2)  I've got a can of coke.
(C)  ?

Example 2
Version 1
(P1)  If it's raining then there are clouds.
(P2)  It's raining.
(C)   ?

Version 2
(P1)  If it's raining then there are clouds.
(P2)  There are clouds.
(C)  ?

Example 3
Version 1
(P1)  If we booga booga then we oompalumpa.
(P2)  We oompalumpa'ed.
(C)  ?

Version 2
(P1)  If we booga booga then we oompalumpa.
(P2)  We booga booga'ed.
(C)  ?

Example 4
Version 1
(P1)  If Maru is a cat then Maru is a reptile.
(P2)  Maru is a cat.
(C)  ?

Version 2
(P1)  If Maru is a cat then Maru is a mammal.
(P2)  Maru is a mammal.
(C)  ?

Example 5
(P1)  If he liked it then he should have put a ring on it.
(P2)  Whoa oh oh, oh oh oh;
(P3)  Whoa oh oh, oh oh oh;
(P4)  He should have put a ring on it.
(C)   ?

Explanation:
Conditional reasoning uses If/then statements.  The "if" clause is called the "antecedent" and the "then" clause" is called the "consequent."  A common short-hand method for writing if-then statements is to take the first letter or letters of a key term in the antecedent, draw an arrow, then write the first letter of letters of the key terms in the consequent.

Example:
If I'm late for work then I'll get in trouble = L --> T.  (The 'L' is for 'late' and the 'T' is for 'trouble'.)

The valid form of conditional reasoning is called modus ponens.  One premise is the full conditional statement, the other premise is the antecedent (the order doesn't matter), and the conclusion is the consequent.  One incorrect form of conditional reasoning is called "affirming the consequent".  Affirming the consequent is when the consequent is a premise and the antecedent is the conclusion.

Example of modus ponens (always valid):
(P1)  If I'm late for work then I'll be in trouble.
(P2)  I'm late for work.
(C)  I'm going to be in trouble.

(P1)  If X then Y.
(P2)  X.
(C)  Y.

Example of affirming the consequent (never valid)
(P1)  If I'm late for work then I'll be in trouble.
(P2)  I'm in trouble.
(C)  I was late for work.

(P1)  If X then Y.
(P2)  Y.
(C)  X.

Conditional Reasoning Part 2.  Denying the Antecedent and Modus Tollens 
Example 1
Version 1
(P1)  If the Ukraine asserts its independence from Russia then Russia will attack it.
(P2)  The Ukraine didn't assert its independence from Russia.
(C)   Russia won't attack it.

Version 2
(P1)  If the Ukraine asserts its independence from Russia then Russia will attack it.
(P2)  Russia didn't attack the Ukraine.
(C)  ?

Example 2
Version 1
(P1)  If you work hard then you will be wealthy.
(P2)  You didn't work hard.
(C)  ?

Version 2
(P1)  If you work hard then you will be wealthy.
(P2)  You aren't wealthy.
(C)  ?

Example 3
Version 1
(P1)  If the bubba had wheels she would have been a street car.
(P2)  The bubba doesn't have wheels.
(C)  ?

Version 2
(P1)  If the bubba had wheels she would have been a street car.
(P2)  The bubba isn't a street car.
(C)  ?

Example 4
Version 1
(P1)  If you do the hokey pokey then you'll turn yourself around.
(P2)  I didn't do the hokey pokey.
(C)  ?

(P1)  If you do the hokey pokey then you'll turn yourself around.
(P2)  I didn't turn myself around.
(C)  ?

Try for examples 1-5 Part 1

Explanation:
Just as there is a valid and invalid version of positive formulations of conditional reasoning there is a valid and invalid version of negative formulations of conditional reasonings.  The valid formulation is called modus tollens: One premise is the conditional the other premise is the negation of the consequent. The invalid formulation is when one premise is the conditional and the other premise is the negation of the antecedent.

Example of Modus Tollens (Always Valid)
(P1) If I eat too much then I feel bloated.
(P2) I don't feel bloated.
(C)  I didn't eat too much.

(P1) If X then Y.
(P2) Not Y.
(C)  Not X.

Example of Denying the Antecedent (Never valid)
(P1) If I eat too much then I feel bloated.
(P2) I didn't eat too much.
(C)  I don't feel bloated.

(P1)  If X then Y.
(P2)  Not X.
(C)  Not Y.

Conditional Reasoning Part 3: Combining Concepts: Conditional Reasoning + Hidden Assumptions
Example 1:
The ingredients of this food are all natural.  It's good for your health.

Example 2:
Universal health care is a bad idea because it's socialist.

Example 3:
Bob is a nice guy:  he gave me a free frozen yogurt!

Example 4:
I'm going to see the new super-hero movie.  It's going to be great!

Example 5: 
I just started taking cryo-magnum super pump muscle blaster pre-workout.  I'm gonna be swole in a month.


Conditional Reasoning Part 4: Combining Concepts:  Conditional Reasoning and Falsificationism
A. Hypothesis/Claim:  Echinacea cures the common cold.
Conditional Hypothesis:  If I take echinacea then my cold will be cured.
Construct the Argument:  How does this relate to falsificationism? How would we employ it?

B.  Hypothesis/Claim:  Thimerisol in MMR vaccines causes autism.
Conditional Hypothesis?
Construct the Argument.  Employ falsificationism and suggest how you'd test the hypothesis.

C.  Hypothesis/Claim:  Sour sop cures cancer.
Conditional Hypothesis?
Construct the Argument. Employ falsificationism and suggest how you'd test the hypothesis.

D.  Hypothesis/Claim:  Eating/drinking supplement X prevents me from getting sick.
Conditional Hypothesis?
Construct the argument.  Employ falsificationism and suggest how you'd test the hypothesis.

E.  Hypothesis/Claim:  Weight-loss supplement "Super Quantum Lipo-Fat Burner Extra Mega Shred" causes weight loss.
Conditional Hypothesis?
Construct the argument.  Employ falsificationism and suggest how you'd test the hypothesis.

Key Concepts:
A) What the natural prevalence rate?
B)  Control Group.

Take Home Midterm:
1.  Form groups of 3 or 4.
2.  Due Wed 12th at midnight.

Test: 
1.  Your grade on this test is a good predictor of your grade in the course unless you change what you're doing.
2.  I'm available for extra help after class and/or by appointment.

Homework 7A:
1.  Complete the examples of Part 3 that we didn't do in class.  1.  Complete the argument by stating the missing premise in conditional form (If...then...).  2.  Rewrite the argument as modus tollens, denying the antecedent, and affirming the consequent.

2.  Complete Part 4.

Take-Home Midterm Due Wednesday March 12 at Midnight

Begin Here:
Listen:  I know it's an hour, but it's important. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/392/someone-elses-money
Excellent even-handed summary of the core issues: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/the-hurdles-to-success-for-the-affordable-care-act/
Overview of many of the claimed problems with the US medical system pre-ACA (and currently)

Resources (For later):
Who pays more, who doesn't (sources from across the political spectrum):
https://www.healthcare.gov/will-i-qualify-to-save-on-monthly-premiums/
https://www.healthcare.gov/will-i-qualify-to-save-on-out-of-pocket-costs/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/17/ted-cruz/sen-ted-cruz-says-premiums-have-gone-virtually-eve/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/14/obamacares-website-is-crashing-because-it-doesnt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/23/its-official-obamacare-will-increase-health-spending-by-7450-for-a-typical-family-of-four/
Cost of medical coverage for an average family of 4 in 2012
Who pays for the uninsured? And how does is affect everyone's healthcare costs (pre-ACA)
Obamacare Cost Calculator
Facts on the Uninsured

The ACA and the Effect on Taxes, the Deficit, Employment, and the Budget: http://247wallst.com/healthcare-economy/2013/10/10/the-economic-impact-of-obamacare/
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176
http://www.gao.gov/products/gao-13-281
effect on employment: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45096

US Healthcare Costs vs Other Industrialized Nations (With Socialized Healthcare): http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/21-graphs-that-show-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2012/May/1595_Squires_explaining_high_hlt_care_spending_intl_brief.pdf

NOTE: All arguments pro and con to be evaluated are at the bottom of this page.

Part I:  Critical Thinking Basics
Choose 1 PRO Arguments and 2 CON Arguments and do the following:
Stage 1:  (a)  (i) Break the argument down into premise-conclusion form (paraphrasing is OK)(ii) identify and include any relevant hidden premises and conclusions; (b) diagram the argument; (c) evaluate and justify your evaluations of (i) premise acceptability, (ii) (internal) relevance, (iii) sufficiency, (iv) burden of proof.  Be sure to justify your evaluations.

Stage 2: (a)  Is the source of the empirical assertions (data) biased (i.e., affiliated with a partisan political think-tank) or from an impartial source (university study/gov't or UN website)? (b)  Is there any slanting by distortion or omission (is there any important information that is being either trivialized or misrepresented)?  (c) Are there any red herrings or strawmen?

Part II: Being a Good Philosopher
Part of being a good philosopher is adhering to the principle of charity.  The principle of charity is that you should always interpret your opponent's argument in the strongest way possible.  By showing that a weak version of the argument fails, you leave the door open for many counter-replies.  What you want to do is interpret their position in the strongest way.  This way you show that even in its strongest interpretation it fails and that particular line of argument for the conclusion is blocked off.

An even stronger version of the principle of charity is to offer your opponent ways to make their argument stronger.  That is, you're going to help your opponent! Lets try this:

Stage 1
(a) Pick one argument from each side that you think is weak (you can use the same arguments you used in Part 1 if you like); (b)  break it down into premise-conclusion form and explain why it is weak (i.e., what are the weak inferences and premises); (c) add premises, sub-arguments, and look for data to better support the position.

Part III:  Being a Good Skeptic (NOT Contrarian or Conspiracy Theorist!)
Choose 1 argument from each position that makes empirical claims (You may choose them from Part I or Part 2 or use different ones)
Stage 1:  Imagine the person who gave you these arguments has a reputation for lying--in fact, they are a pathological lier.  In other words, the fact that their conclusion may coincide with your own views is no reason to suppose that their premises true.  You don't want to hold an position for the wrong reasons.  That would make you no better than the people on the other side of the issue!

Use your fancy computer and the "internet" to fact check every single assertion they make.  Don't go to just one site--look at sites that are politically neutral as well as on either side of the issue (I recommend using the links above but you're welcome to find some of your own).  This is the only way to get at the truth...and you're on a one-way mission!

Stage 1: 
What are their empirical assertions? (facts, statistics, what people value, what is good, predictions about the future, etc...).  These will be the contents of their premises.

Stage 2: 
After compiling your research, answer the following questions: (a)  To what degree are the assertions true? (b)  if they aren't completely false, what part is true and what is distorted or omitted?  Explain; (c) supposing the assertions are true or partially true, to what degree are they relevant to the conclusion?  (d)  What other information might be relevant to the conclusion that isn't included or distorted (refer back to (b))?

Part IV:  Constructing Your Own Good Arguments
Based on all you have learned from your investigation of other arguments and the background information construct one argument, in premise conclusion form, for each position (i.e., for and against) on the ACA.

For your against position, you must also argue for what you would put in place of the ACA or how you'd modify it. When you construct you own arguments for each position, you are expected to create you own arguments. Also remember, when you come up with your negative argument (vs ACA), in addition to pointing out the problems with the ACA you have to say how your solution addresses those problems and you must also say how your solution will address (i) the large number of people who currently can't afford healthcare, (ii) the people who have pre-existing conditions.

Be prepared to defend both your arguments in class!  Hint: Anticipate objections!

Part V:  Peer Evaluation
Every student, in a separate private email, must submit an evaluation for each of your group members contribution to the group project.

According to the following criteria rank each group member on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree.

(A) Attends group meetings regularly and arrives on time.
(B) Contributes meaningfully to group discussions.
(C) Completes group assignments on time.
(D) Prepares work in a quality manner.
(E) Demonstrates a cooperative and supportive attitude.
(F) Contributes significantly to the success of the project.

If your peers give you an average evaluation score that is less than 3 received for the assignment, this lower evaluation will be reflected in your individual overall score for the assignment.

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE ACA

Pro ACA

Argument 1
No matter which side of the health reform debate you fall on, one thing is certain: premiums have been rising sharply, and hard-working American families are struggling to afford the high costs.

A 2009 study (see graph 4) showed that from 2000-2009 health insurance premiums skyrocketed, while wages have remained at a standstill-causing a strain on family budgets.

Thanks to the economy, those lucky enough to keep their jobs often see their share of health insurance premiums go up, while their salary stays the same. Other workers are required to pay more out of pocket for services each year, while still more lose their coverage entirely. As health care costs continue to rise, more and more workers are priced out of job-based coverage. Currently, many of these workers and their families are forced to face the wild west of the individual insurance market or go without coverage entirely.

Because of health reform, however, Americans are no longer left out in the cold when it comes to purchasing coverage. Those who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford the high cost of insurance in the individual market will finally get the relief they've been waiting for. And those who have ever been sick and have seen their premiums unfairly jacked up will now be eligible to receive financial assistance-so no one will be priced out of the system.

Argument 2
It is likely sometime in your life that you, or someone you know, have been denied insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition. According to a report recently released by the U.S Department of Health and Human Services:

"12.6 million non-elderly adults - 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market - were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years."

To make matters worse, even if an individual is able to gain coverage, insurance companies are still able to water down your coverage due to your determined pre-existing condition. For example:

"[S]omeone with a pre-existing condition of hay fever could have any respiratory system disease - such as bronchitis or pneumonia - excluded from coverage."

For the millions of Americans who have had to suffer under this discriminatory system, the passage of health reform is a true blessing. Insurance companies will no longer be able to turn down Americans for coverage based on their pre-existing condition, health status, gender or age.

Argument 3
Andrew Ondrejcak, 24, was attempting to live out his dream. He moved from a small town to New York City to start a career in fashion. To make ends-meet, Andrew worked at a local bakery. He could barely afford rent and health insurance was out of the question.

According to Andrew,

"Health insurance wasn't even an option. I was flying through my savings, trying to get a career started. I was doing a lot of assisting [for] designers who were doing great work, but I wasn't making anything. The last thing I'm going to do is spend $300 or whatever on insurance, you know?"

Unfortunately, Andrew became ill. Looking around for a doctor to help him, he found that many would not see him because he didn't have insurance. When he finally found a doctor, he also found that the price was high: A simple doctor' visit would be $200. It was a devastating blow. According to Andrew,

"Basically all the money I'd made that week. I left keeling over in pain but took the bus home because I was so broke.

Andrew's ulcers, which he had problems with a few years back, returned and the pain intensified. The doctor's remedy did not work, and Andrew was rushed to the hospital. So now, he is left with pain, suffering, and debt.

In America, a person who tries to pursue their dream should not be penalized because they get sick. Luckily, for people in Andrew's situation, health reform has eliminated that horrifying scenario from happening to anyone else.

Under health reform, people like Andrew who are dubbed "young invincibles" will now be able to stay on their parents' insurance plans until they are 26. This allows for young adults to start careers, move, and take risks without the threat of debt. It is a simple measure, but it will help prevent other kids striking out on their own from going through what Andrew went through.

Argument 4
A common misconception about health insurance is that if you are covered, you don't have to worry about skyrocketing health care costs. We pay insurance companies premiums every month so we won't have to shell out tons of money when we get sick, right? In theory that's true, but in practice it doesn't always work out that way.

For example "[R]esearchers analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, six of the largest insurers operating in California rejected 47.7 million claims for care – 22 percent of all claims."

And in Vermont researchers found a strong correlation between CEO salary and number of denial of coverage claims.

Thanks to health reform, however, Americans can expect some relief. Thanks to health reform, the amount that anyone will have to pay out of pocket for health expenses each year will be capped -giving Americans peace of mind that they will be covered when they need it most.Additionally, lower- and moderate-income people will receive extra assistance with out-of-pocket costs and will have lower out-of-pocket caps.

Against ACA:

Argument 1:
Health care should not be government run. It is inefficient and just like in most countries will become bankrupt because of the simple fact that not everyone can pay into the system. While some may have to manage without healthcare the most efficient way to provide quality cheap insurance is to have a private healthcare system with multiple company’s that compete for business. This will allow for technological advancements in the medical field as well due to investment opportunity’s that would not be available through a government run system. While there should be government intervention and oversight it should be limited.

Argument 2:
(P1) Many people already have some form of health care program or insurance.
(P2) Many people that are unfortunate enough not to have a health care program of their own are
provided assistance through various programs.
(P3) Penalizing people who do not have health care could make their financial situation worse.
(MC) The purposed reforms to the health care system will help the few, not the many.

Argument 3:

Who Makes Medical Decisions? While the House and Senate language is vague, amendments offered in House and Senate committees to block government rationing of care were routinely defeated. Cost or a federal health board could be the deciding factor. President Obama himself admitted this when he said, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” when asked about an elderly woman who needed a pacemaker.

Argument 4: 

Medicare and Medicaid is pushing the federal budget to the breaking point. Obamacare makes the problem much worse by adding to the entitlement crisis in the form of a massive Medicaid expansion and a new entitlement subsidy for households with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. These two spending entitlement programs will add at least 35 million Americans to the government rolls at an expense of more than $200 billion annually by the end of the decade.

Argument 5: 

 People are welcome to argue that Obamacare is a great deal, that it’s worth all that added spending to get extra coverage for tens of millions of Americans. But of course, that’s not how Obamacare was sold. Rather than tell Americans the truth that they’d have to pay more and that the extra price was worth it, candidate Obama promised the ultimate free lunch: we’ll cover 30 million uninsured AND the typical family will see their premiums go down by $2500 (per year!!!!). Every one of these promises/claims/predictions turned out to be totally wrong. We can start having a productive debate when progressives are willing to concede these simple, easily demonstrable empirical claims. And then perhaps we can move on to junking this unworkable law and replacing it with the world-class patient-centered health system Americans deserve.