Course: Introduction to Logic Assignment: Mid Term

Program: BA Legal Studies 2021 Section: B

Total Marks: 45 Instructor: Mansi Rathour

Internals Mid-Term (45 marks)

- The Document should be in Times New Roman font in 12-point size.
- Please be very careful and check your document for editing mistakes, grammatical errors,
formatting, and proofreading before you make the final submission.
- Plagiarised content will not be evaluated. Please be very careful about this.
- The assignment is from 4th October 2021 (Monday) till 8th October 2021 (Friday). The final
deadline is 8th October 2021 (Friday) by 11:59 pm on UMS in as a single Word Document
file.
- The Mid-Term assignment has 4 parts. Part 1 – Identifying Arguments, Part 2 – Induction,
Part 3 – Argument Analysis Essay and Part 4 – Writing Argumentative Essay. All are
compulsory.

PART 1: Identifying Arguments (5 x 2 = 10 marks)

Identify which of the following are arguments and which are not. Also justify and explain
your position for those which are not arguments. Explain why it is not an argument, is it an
explanation, belief, opinion, etc.? Also justify if it is any of the kind of explanation, report,
belief, opinion, etc. then of what, what is it explaining, what is the belief or opinion? For
those which are arguments, put them in the standard form.

1. As an African American woman, I disagree with Robinson’s condemnation of the

Democratic Party’s front-runners. I only support Biden, not because the others are not
bright and hard-working –they are–but because I and many Americans of colour
believe that only former vice-president Biden can repair the United States after the
racist and sexist Trump administration. Washington Post letters. Jan 8, 2020.
2. In my view, the American people deserve answers, not guesses. I have proposed that
we obtain these answers in a responsible and bipartisan manner. –Conyers
3. We brought various kinds of fishes ashore and turned them loose in the meadow, but
in all cases, they were a disappointment—no legs came. It was strange; we could not
understand it. Within a week they had all wandered back to the water and seemed
better satisfied there. We took this as evidence that fish as a rule do not care for the
land. –Eve’s Diary, p. 78
4. I would not do that if I were you.
5. You must understand that when Adam ate the apple in the Garden and learned how to
multiply and replenish, the other animals learned the Art, too, by watching Adam. It
was cunning of them, it was neat; for they got all that was worth having out of the
apple without tasting it and afflicting themselves with the disastrous Moral Sense, the
parent of all the immoralities. - Letters from the Earth, Letter X, p. 46.
PART 2: Distinguishing Inductive Arguments (1 x 5 = 5 marks)

Briefly describe what is induction and inductive arguments. Also come up with examples of
inductively sound as well as an inductively unsound argument and explaining how they are
so.

PART 3: Argument Analysis Reflective Essay (1 x 15 = 15 marks)

Reconstructing arguments and responding to them
Write a reflective piece in about 300-350 words wherein you examine and evaluate another
argument in an essay. Read following text sample, then reconstruct and evaluate the writing
as a “strong argument” or “weak argument” and explain why. Do you think the argument
being presented is a valid, good one? Why or why not? You may also respond to the position
presented in the passage with explaining your own standpoint, counter examples, finding
some flaw with their argument and/or even defending the claim by this author and identifying
their weak spots or gaps by adding contributing your elements and bringing to it your
argumentative support.

Text: Environmental activist Sunita Narain demanding action on Paris Agreement.

Paris Agreement turns 5: Time to demand real, drastic action NOW

The impacts of climate change have been clear every year since the landmark deal, but the
necessary transformation to a new energy system is still a way away

By Sunita Narain, Published: Friday 11 December 2020

Five years ago, when physical congregations were possible, the world met in freezing cold Paris
to sign the Paris Agreement on climate change. Today, when the world is locked down because of
a raging virus pandemic, it is time to take stock of what was agreed and what needs to be done.
What is clear is in past five years, every part of the world has been wreaked by catastrophic
weather events. So, even as the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) coma takes over our lives,
the future’s uncertainty must weigh heavy on all our minds — young and old, rich or poor.
Climate change is a reality and we are beginning to see the devastating impacts, even as the
global temperature rise, on average is just 1.2 degree Celsius since the 1880s — and Paris or no
Paris agreement, it is expected to go to 3°C or more by this century end.

Let’s then review where we are

Paris 2015 changed the terms of the agreement on climate action fundamentally. Till then the
world had set reduction targets of greenhouse gases (GHG) based on the responsibility of
countries to the stock of emissions in the atmosphere. This created a framework for action — and
built the foundations for the cooperative agreement.
But countries like the United States, which had been long-term historical contributors, did not
want this deal — it put too much onus on them to make reductions. They wanted to erase the very
idea of the past and to focus on the need for all to act and for all to take actions based on what
they believed they could do.
Paris Agreement succumbed to this idea. It was an historical deal — and celebrated accordingly.
In this way all countries threw in their targets into the ring, called the Nationally Determined
Contributions (NDC); and even as Paris Agreement was graveled down, it was understood that
the sum of these NDCs, would add up to at least 3°C temperature increase by century end.

But hopes were high

The US, for once had been roped in through this compromise. The words were salutary — Paris
Agreement said it would “aspire” to keep the world below 1.5°C and “well below” 2°C from pre-
industrial era of 1880.
To get this done, three things were on the table. One, to ‘ratchet’ up the NDCs — based on the
fact that countries would realise the imperative of taking more drastic action as climate change
impacts hit them.
Two, a global stocktaking in 2023 and then every five years to measure progress and to use this
to ‘rachet’ cuts. And three, to develop market-based instruments that would allow countries to
buy their way into emission reductions in the future.
Now, five years later, when the conference of parties (COP) to the climate agreement will not
even meet physically, the news is not good.
Let’s not beat around the bush on this. Global emissions may have reduced marginally in the past
year because of COVID-19, but this slowdown is temporary. The United Nations Environment
Programme’s Emissions Gap Report 2020 finds that global GHG emissions have continued to
rise in the past three years. In 2019 emissions were a record high.
It is also known that countries like the US will not achieve even the meagre voluntary
commitments they have set under the Paris Agreement. US emissions in 2019 where higher than
in 2016. This even as the country reduced its energy-related emissions by a whopping 30 per cent
in the past decade.
It is also clear that at the current levels of emissions, the world will ‘exhaust’ the carbon budget
by 2030 for 1.5°C target. This when large parts of the world, including India, will need the right
to develop — which in today’s context where coal and natural gas, both fossil fuels, remain the
most competitive fuels, would mean increase in emissions.
It is clear that the transformation to new energy systems, driven by renewable, is still a way away.
Even in most low-carbon advanced regions like the European Union, talk aside, coal is still as
large a part of the energy system as is the new renewable technology — wind or solar.
So, it is necessary to move towards this transformation in the still emerging world, but there are
no enabling conditions, that will make this happen. Talk is cheap. Transformation is not.

But the goal-post is already being shifted

The new buzz-word is ‘net-zero’. Already many countries in the world have declared net-zero
targets for 2050; China has joined the climate-emancipated to say it will be net-zero by 2060.
Now the pressure is on all governments, including India, to set its future target.
The problem is not with the ambition or intention to turn net-zero. The problem is that in most
cases, this grandstanding declaration has no flesh — it is devoid of a plan to get there; or the
pathway that would make greenhouse gas emissions go away.
In very few cases, countries have come up with hard targets for this decade — how to get to
reductions in 2030. In most cases, this drastic reduction in the immediate is not clear; but the ball
has been kicked into the future.
This is why we need more reality checks in the climate change narrative — the impacts are
certain, but as yet, action is pusillanimous. We deserve better. So, on this fifth anniversary of the
Paris Agreement, let’s not allow lofty words to ring the bell; let’s demand action. Hard, drastic,
real and now.
PART 4: Writing Argumentative Essay (1 x 15 = 15 marks)

Select one of the following questions and write a short argumentative essay (around 450-500
words) in response to it. Bring a sound argumentation in support of your position. The
answer will be evaluated solely on the quality of your argument. Have a suitable title, and a
passage that is well structured, to the point that clearly shows your argument. Do not copy
information from the internet without due credit. Have original points, that you develop and
support with the help of evidence or examples.

1) Are women better managers than men?

2) Is technology rising unemployment rates?
3) Should we ban Chinese products in India?
4) Should military training be compulsory all over India?
5) English as the national language. Is it fair to have the most spoken language as the
national language?