The Language of Argument

2 7 2

C H A P T E R 1 2 ■ C h o i c e s

NOTES

(^1) If the lottery gave a consolation prize of a shiny new quarter to all losers, their net loss would
be only seventy-five cents. Since most lotteries do not give consolation prizes, the net loss
equals the cost of playing such lotteries.
(^2) Gregory Kavka, “Deterrence, Utility, and Rational Choice,” reprinted in Moral Paradoxes
of Nuclear Deterrence (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 65–66. Kavka uses
this medical example to argue for his disaster avoidance rule and, by analogy, to defend the
rationality of nuclear deterrence.

1. In the game of ignorance, you draw one card from a deck, but you do not
   know how many cards or which kinds of cards are in the deck. It might be
   a normal deck or it might contain only diamonds or only aces of spades or
   any other combination of cards. It costs nothing to play. If you bet that the
   card you draw will be a spade, and it is a spade, then you win $100. If you
   bet that the card you draw will not be a spade, and it is not a spade, then
   you win $90. You may make only one bet. Which bet would you make if
   you followed the maximax rule? The maximin rule? The disaster avoidance
   rule? The rule of insufficient reason? Which rule seems most plausible this
   case? Which bet should you make? Why?


2. In which circumstances do you think it is appropriate to use the dominance
   rule? The rule of insufficient reason? The maximax rule? The maximin rule?
   The disaster avoidance rule? Why?


3. Suppose that you may choose either of two envelopes. You know that one
   envelope contains twice as much money as the other, but you do not know
   the amount of money in either envelope. You choose an envelope, open it,
   and see that it contains $100. Now you know that the other envelope must
   contain either $50 or $200. At this point, you are given a choice: You may ex-
   change your envelope for the other envelope. Should you switch envelopes,
   according to the rule of insufficient reason? Is this result plausible? Why or
   why not?

Discussion Questions

97364_ch12_ptg01_263-272.indd 272 15/11/13 11:00 AM

some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,

affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.