Introduction to Philosophy Coursera week 3 Quiz

In this blog you will find the correct answer of the Coursera quiz Introduction to Philosophy Coursera week 3 Quiz mixsaver always try to brings best blogs and best coupon codes

1. Political philosophy is the part of philosophy that

Examines philosophical questions about the relations between citizens
Examines philosophical questions about the relations between states and between states and their citizens
Examines the problem of political obligation, among others

2. Do citizens have an obligation to obey the state and its laws?

Yes, because we always have an obligation to comply with the law
It depends on whether the problem of political obligation can be solved.

3.Acting in accordance with the law

Is necessary to obey the law
Is sufficient to comply with the law
Is sufficient to obey the law

4. The statement ‘Citizens can have obligation to comply with the law without having obligations to obey the law’

Is true
Is false
Might be true, might be false, depending on whether there is a solution for the problem of political obligation.

5.Socrates suggests grounds for political obligation including

Punishment
Gratitude
Consent

6. Does being benefited always generate obligations?

Yes, being benefitted always generate obligations to obey
No, we don’t have the obligation to obey someone just because they benefitted us

7.According to Fairness theory

Being part of a fair scheme of cooperation generate obligations
We have an obligation to obey unjust states

8.A problem for the consent theory is that

Sufficient people have given consent
It is too easy to escape the obligation to obey the law by refusing consent
Consent is not capable of generating obligations

9. The problem of political obligation

The problem of political obligation
Has no solution
Might have no solution

10. Philosophical anarchism is true

Because the problem of political obligation can’t be solved
If the problem of political obligation can be solved
If we don’t have an obligation to obey the law

Practice Quiz: Should You Believe What You Hear?

1.What is distinctive of “naturalistic” approaches to philosophy? (Select all that apply.)

No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of Nature.
No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of supernatural phenomena.
No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of God.
No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of human societies.

2. Which of the following captures Hume’s assumption about basing beliefs on testimony?

To properly base a belief on testimony, you must have independent evidence that testimony is true.
There is no species of reasoning more useful than that which is derived from testimony.
To properly base a belief on testimony, you must have evidence that testifiers are likely to be correct.
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.

3.What assumption of Hume’s did Reid want to challenge?

That we do not have any good evidence for assuming that our senses are likely to be right.
That we have a reason to trust in testimony only provided that we know that it is likely to be right.
That we have a reason to trust in testimony only if our sense perceptions confirm it to be right.
That we do not have any good evidence for assuming that testimony can ever be right.

4. What did Hume think of Reid’s principles of credulity and veracity?

He agreed that they both are true.
He argued that both are false.
He argued that the principle of credulity is true, but the principle of veracity false.
He argued that the principle of credulity is false, but the principle of veracity true.

Quiz: Do You Have an Obligation to Obey the Law?

1. What is the problem of political obligation?

It’s the problem of showing why we ought to always obey the law
It’s the problem of understanding why we have an obligation to comply with the law

It’s the problem of finding an explanation of why we have an obligation to obey the state and its laws

2. What is it to obey the law?

Acting in accordance with the law
Doing what the law commands because the law commands it

3. What is it to comply with the law?

To do what the law commands
To do what the law commands because the law commands it

4. What are the grounds of political obligation?

The punishment that we avoid when commanding with the law
The facts that generate the obligation to obey the law

5. Which of the following have been suggested as possible grounds for political obligation?

Responsibility
Gratitude
Consent
Religion
Fairness

6. The benefit theory of political obligation claims that

Citizens are benefitted by the state. Because of this, they have an obligation to obey it
Citizens are obliged to obey the state because of the benefits it has bestowed upon them
Citizens are obliged to obey the state because of the benefit they can gain if they obey the law

7.The consent theory of political obligation claims that

We have an obligation to obey the state because we have consented to the state and to having such obligations to it
It is the consent to being governed that generates the obligation to obey the law
We can avoid the obligation to obey the law by refusing consent
We have an obligation to obey the state because we have all explicitly expressed our consent to obey the state

8. Some examples of giving tacit consent to the state are

Participating in the elections
Using public services
Expressing openly our decision to obey the state
Remaining within the state

9. Philosophical anarchism…

Holds that we don’t have an obligation to obey the law
Defends political anarchism
Is compatible with the thought that we have good reasons and obligations to comply with the law

10. If the problem of political obligation can’t be solved,…

We still have an obligation to obey the law
Philosophical anarchism is true

Quiz: Should You Believe What You Hear?

1. Which of the following are instances of gaining a belief via testimony? (Select as many boxes as is appropriate.)

Forming the belief that theft is wrong by careful introspection.
Forming the belief that phenolphthalein turns colourless in acidic solutions by dipping phenolphthalein into an acidic solution.
Forming the belief that a meteorite hit Russia by reading it in a newspaper.
Forming the belief that evolution by natural selection takes place by watching a television programme.
Forming the belief that Hume mistrusted testimony by reading it in his book “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”.
Forming the belief that you have toes by looking at them.
Forming the belief that you had breakfast this morning by reflecting on your experiences.
Forming the belief that there is a sheep in a field by looking into the field.
Forming the belief that you are not a brain-in-a-vat by philosophical reflection.
Forming the belief that Hume mistrusted testimony by hearing it in a philosophy lecture.

2. What are miracles according to Hume’s definition?

Events that are inconsistent with the laws of nature.
Events that could not possibly happen.
Events that are very unlikely.
Events that present science cannot explain.
Events that happen just as a matter of luck.
Amazing events, such as childbirth.
Events brought about by the action of a supernatural being.

3. Why did Hume hold that any miracle is highly unlikely?

Miracles are highly unlikely because even an omnipotent God would be unable to intervene in the natural order.
Miracles are highly unlikely because all testimony is untrustworthy.
Miracles are highly unlikely because unprecedented violations of the laws of nature are highly unlikely.
Miracles are highly unlikely because laws of nature state what should happen, and a miracle would be a violation of that.
Miracles are highly unlikely because it is always more likely that someone is mistaken about events, and therefore saying something false.

4. Why did Hume and Reid think that we trust our senses without evidence that they are likely to be right?

We can’t have good evidence that our senses are reliable.
We are ignorant of the scientific evidence regarding the unreliability of our senses.
Checking that our senses are reliable is too difficult in practice.
We have been taught to trust our senses by our parents and general enculturation.

5.How did Hume think that one ought to assess the likelihood of an event taking place after having acquired testimony that it took place?

Consider whether the testifier herself believes that the event took place on the basis of testimony.
Work out whether the event actually happened by relying on our epistemic intuitions instead of testimony.
Use neuro-linguistic programming techniques to assess the truthfulness of the testifier.
Work out what is more likely: that the testifier is mistaken or lying, or that the event actually happened.

6. Reid criticised Hume’s position on testimony on the grounds that:

It supports atheism or agnosticim.
Testimonial knowledge is gained through the senses and our senses are reliable.
If it were correct, we would be deprived of much of the knowledge we in fact possess.

7. What was Reid’s “principle of credulity”?

That we are disposed to prefer beliefs formed via testimony over other beliefs.
That we have a disposition to be truthful.
That children are especially disposed to be truthful.
That we are “hardwired” to believe only true testimony.
That we are “hardwired” to tell the truth.
That we should not credulously accept people’s testimony, but only do so on the basis of evidence.
That we have a natural disposition to believe what others tell us.

8. How did Reid argue for the view that we should believe testimony without first seeking external evidence?

As a clergyman, he argued that the Church of Scotland had the authority to pronounce on matters without evidence.
He claimed that seeking evidence would lead to unorthodox views about morality, and hence that it was safer for society to trust testimony.
As an early socialist, he argued that solidarity required trusting others in the community.
He claimed that knowledge by testimony was analogous to knowledge by sense perception, and that we should trust sense perception without first seeking external evidence that our senses are properly functioning.

9. Hume argued for the view that we ought not to trust testimony without evidence on the grounds that humans are “hardwired” to be dishonest, and hence we ought not to trust their testimony. True or false?

True
False

10. What did Kant take The Enlightenment to consist in?

Rejecting testimony wholesale, and forming beliefs only on the basis of philosophical reasoning.
Becoming “Renaissance men”: learning everything there is to know about both the sciences and the arts.
Overturning undemocratic political authorities.
Using one’s own reasoning and understanding, rather than relying only on what others tell us.

Important link: