Quiz: The Toolkit
Multiple Choice
1. The trolley problem is philosophically useful primarily because:
a) It accurately describes a common real-world ethical dilemma
b) It tests emergency response decision-making under stress
c) It isolates a single moral variable — whether consequences alone determine moral permissibility
d) It demonstrates that most people are not naturally consequentialist
2. An argument is described as "valid" when:
a) Its premises are true
b) Its conclusion is widely accepted
c) The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, regardless of whether the premises are true
d) It has been accepted by a majority of philosophers
3. The "hidden premise" in an argument is best described as:
a) A premise the arguer is deliberately hiding to deceive the audience
b) An unstated assumption that is necessary for the premises to support the conclusion
c) A premise that is false but is presented as obviously true
d) A conclusion disguised as a premise
4. The principle of charity requires that you:
a) Assume everyone arguing in good faith is correct
b) Avoid criticizing views you disagree with
c) Interpret an argument in its strongest, most defensible form before criticizing it
d) Give equal weight to all arguments regardless of their quality
5. Reductio ad absurdum works as a philosophical tool by:
a) Showing that an argument's premises are factually incorrect
b) Following a principle's implications to their extreme to test whether those implications are acceptable
c) Reducing complex arguments to their simplest form
d) Demonstrating that an argument leads to logical contradiction
6. Conceptual analysis is most useful when:
a) Two parties are arguing about empirical facts
b) One party has more expertise than the other
c) A disagreement may be partly about what a key term means
d) An argument contains too many premises to evaluate easily
7. In reflective equilibrium, when a principle produces a judgment that seems clearly wrong, you should:
a) Always trust the principle over the judgment
b) Always trust the judgment over the principle
c) Consider whether the judgment or the principle is more reliable in this case and adjust accordingly
d) Discard both and start from scratch
8. "Tollensing the ponens" refers to:
a) Converting a deductive argument into an inductive one
b) Running an argument backwards: using the wrongness of the conclusion as evidence against a premise
c) Identifying the hidden premise in a philosophical argument
d) Applying the principle of charity to a modus ponens argument
9. According to this chapter, intuitions are best understood as:
a) Proof that a conclusion is morally correct
b) Irrelevant to philosophical argument
c) Accumulated evidence about what tends to harm and flourish, which carries weight but is not decisive
d) Emotional reactions that should always be overridden by reason
10. The primary difference between a philosophical disagreement and a political fight, as described in this chapter, is:
a) Political fights involve more emotion
b) Philosophical disagreements are about abstract issues; political fights are about practical ones
c) Philosophical disagreements aim at finding truth; political fights aim at winning
d) Political fights are more important because they have real consequences
Short Answer
11. Explain the difference between an argument being valid and being sound. Construct one example of a valid but unsound argument.
(3–5 sentences)
12. You encounter the following argument: "Human beings are inherently selfish. Therefore, attempts at genuine altruism are either self-deception or disguised self-interest."
a) Write this in explicit premise-conclusion form, including any hidden premises you can identify.
b) Apply the principle of charity: what is the strongest version of this argument?
c) Identify at least one point where the reasoning is vulnerable.
(5–8 sentences)
13. The chapter distinguishes between intuitions as "proof" and intuitions as "evidence." Using an example, explain this distinction and why it matters for moral reasoning.
(4–6 sentences)
14. Someone argues: "We should always follow the logical argument wherever it leads, regardless of what our intuitions say. Intuitions are just feelings, and feelings aren't philosophy."
How would this chapter respond? Is the person right that intuitions are "just feelings"? What role should intuitions play?
(5–7 sentences)
15. Return to Priya from Chapter 1. Write the strongest argument against her leaving her job — applying the principle of charity, not the argument her parents are actually making, but the best version of that position. Then identify the premises and note which one you think is most vulnerable.
(6–8 sentences)
Answer Key
Multiple Choice: 1-c, 2-c, 3-b, 4-c, 5-b, 6-c, 7-c, 8-b, 9-c, 10-c
Short Answer Rubric: - Full credit: engages with the specific conceptual distinction, uses a clear example, demonstrates application rather than paraphrase - Partial credit: shows general understanding but lacks precision or example - Minimal credit: vague restatement without specific content - Question 12: look for students who find hidden premises beyond the obvious (e.g., the hidden premise that self-interest and altruism are mutually exclusive, or that "inherently" means "always") - Question 15: look for genuine charity — the strongest version should be one that acknowledges Priya's values, not just one that says "jobs are important"