Philosophy Questions( Logical Thinking) There are 20 questions of logical thinking in the file, textbook is the reference for those answers. PHIL 109: Fina

Philosophy Questions( Logical Thinking) There are 20 questions of logical thinking in the file, textbook is the reference for those answers. PHIL 109: Final Exam (Fall 2021)

Hint: It is possible to extract everything you need for the final exam from 2 pages of the essay: pages 34 and 35. (However, you may be able to
find other examples elsewhere in the essay that you find easier.) Read the pages first; then, go back to them, and quote your preferred examples.

Read the essay in the PDF linked below (PDF pages 31-38): Anand Toprani, “Hydrocarbons and Hegemony”,
JFQ 102 (2021): pages 29-36; then upload a file answering all 20 questions below as your personal final exam:
https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-102/JFQ_102.pdf

Part I: The First Action of the Mind (Conceptualization)
1. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a definition is given (citing the page number for your
quotation). Is your chosen example a real or nominal definition? If it is real, then is it logical, causal, or
descriptive? If it is logical, then distinguish both the genus and the essential difference. If it is causal, then
distinguish whether there are formal, final, material, or efficient causes involved. If it is descriptive, then state
whether it uses a property or an accident. [Review: see Lessons 10–12]

Part II: The Second Action of the Mind (Judgment)
2. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a universal affirmative Type A proposition is given
(citing the page number for your quotation). Rewrite the proposition in your chosen example in standard form,
distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms.
[Review: see Lessons 14–17]

3. For the Type A proposition in #2 above, state its contrary, its contradictory, and its subalternate (each in
standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to
define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O). [Review: see Lesson 18]

4. If we assume the Type A proposition in #2 above is FALSE, then state whether its contrary is TRUE,
FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; state whether its contradictory is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; and
state whether its subalternate is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED. [Review: see Lesson 18]

5. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a universal negative Type E proposition is given (citing
the page number for your quotation). Rewrite the proposition in your chosen example in standard form,
distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms.
[Review: see Lessons 14–17]

6. For the Type E proposition in #5 above, state: its contrary; its contradictory; and its subalternate (each in
standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to
define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O). [Review: see Lesson 18]

7. If we assume the Type E proposition in #5 above is FALSE, then state: whether its contrary is TRUE,
FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; state whether its contradictory is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; and
state whether its subalternate is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED. [Review: see Lesson 18]

8. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a particular affirmative Type I proposition is given
(citing the page number for your quotation). Rewrite the proposition in your chosen example in standard form,
distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms.
[Review: see Lessons 14–17]

9. For the Type I proposition in #8 above, state: its subcontrary; its contradictory; and its subimplicate (each in
standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to
define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O). [Review: see Lesson 18]

10. If we assume the Type I proposition in #8 above is TRUE, then state: whether its subcontrary is TRUE,
FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; state whether its contradictory is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; and
state whether its subimplicate is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED. [Review: see Lesson 18]

11. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a particular negative Type O proposition is given (citing
the page number for your quotation). Rewrite the proposition in your chosen example in standard form,

PHIL 109: Final Exam (Fall 2021)

Hint: It is possible to extract everything you need for the final exam from 2 pages of the essay: pages 34 and 35. (However, you may be able to
find other examples elsewhere in the essay that you find easier.) Read the pages first; then, go back to them, and quote your preferred examples.

distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms.
[Review: see Lessons 14–17]

12. For the Type O proposition in #11 above, state: its subcontrary; its contradictory; and its subimplicate
(each in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase
letters to define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O). [Review: see Lesson 18]

13. If we assume the Type O proposition in #11 above is TRUE, then state: whether its subcontrary is TRUE,
FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; state whether its contradictory is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; and
state whether its subimplicate is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED. [Review: see Lesson 18]

14. Write the inverse of the proposition in #2 above. Show all the steps involved in the inference. Write all
propositions in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single
uppercase letters to define your terms. [Review: see Lessons 19–20]

15. Write the inverse of the proposition in #5 above. Show all the steps involved in the inference. Write all
propositions in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single
uppercase letters to define your terms. [Review: see Lessons 19–20]

Part III: The Third Action of the Mind (Argument)
16. Quote a passage from the assigned essay in which you find a syllogism, an enthymeme, or an epicheirema
(citing the page number for your quotation). Choose only one argument type. Rewrite each proposition in your
chosen example in standard form, distinguishing the conclusion’s subject term from the conclusion’s predicate
term, as well as the middle term(s), by using single uppercase letters to define your terms, and labelling each
proposition Type as A, E, I, or O. Use square brackets to enclose any unspoken premises assumed in
enthymematic reasoning, if applicable. [Review: see Lessons 24–28]

17. Analyze the argument in #16 above by checking it for validity and then stating whether it is VALID or
INVALID. Prove your answer by drawing a Venn diagram for the argument, labeling it according to your
analysis in #16 above. If the argument is INVALID, state each one of the four rules which the argument
violates. If the argument is VALID, state whether or not it is SOUND, and why. [Review: see Lessons 25–27]

18. Quote another passage from the assigned essay (different from your example in #16) in which you find a
syllogism, an enthymeme, or an epicheirema (citing the page number for your quotation). Choose only one.
Rewrite each proposition in your chosen example in standard form, distinguishing the conclusion’s subject
term from the conclusion’s predicate term, as well as the middle term(s), by using single uppercase letters to
define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O. Use square brackets to enclose any
unspoken premises assumed in enthymematic reasoning, if applicable. If you wish, instead of citing another
passage, you can paraphrase what you discern the main argument of the entire essay to be, by stating your
interpretation as a syllogism, enthymeme, or epicheirema, and then formalizing that argument according to the
preceding symbolization instructions for #18. [Review: see Lessons 24–28]

19. Analyze the argument in #18 above by checking it for validity and then stating whether it is VALID or
INVALID. Prove your answer by drawing a Venn diagram for the argument, labeling it according to your
analysis in #18 above. If the argument is INVALID, state each one of the four rules which the argument
violates. If the argument is VALID, state whether or not it is SOUND, and why. [Review: see Lessons 25–27]

20. Quote a passage from the assigned essay in which you find a modus ponens argument, a modus tollens
argument, a denying the antecedent fallacy, an affirming the consequent fallacy, a sorites, a hypothetical
syllogism, a conjunctive syllogism, a disjunctive syllogism, a constructive dilemma, a destructive dilemma, or
a reductio ad absurdum argument (citing the page number for your quotation). Choose only one argument
type. Symbolize your chosen argument by using the techniques you learned in this course. State whether your
chosen argument is VALID or INVALID. Is it also SOUND? [Review: see Lessons 21–22, 30–31, and 33]

34 J P M E To d a y / Hydrocarbons and Hegemony JFQ 102, 3rd Quarter 2021

Before 1914, this last factor was most
pronounced in the naval dimension, but
thereafter it spread to other domains of
warfare thanks to the internal combustion
engine. Coal was not suitable for internal
combustion, and the transition away
from steam left Great Britain saddled
with obsolete infrastructure around the
world (coaling stations and mines—a
version of the “stranded asset” problem).
Finally, Britain had to restructure its naval
and maritime power by converting from
coal to oil during a period of financial
duress. This shift occurred at a time
when Britain was already under pres-
sure from rising naval challenges from
Germany, Japan, and the United States.
Even though Britain managed to defeat
its German rival and win Japan as an ally
during World War I, it did so with U.S.
oil and dollars, while the growth in U.S.
naval power and dominance in oil global
production meant that the United States
controlled Britain’s access to oil even

after British firms began developing the
Middle East, where security in wartime
was always questionable.

Oil, therefore, in many ways created
as well as sustained American hegemony.
One might assume that the resurgence of
U.S. domestic oil production during the
“shale revolution” would presage a new
era of American geopolitical dominance,
but that is a short-sighted perspective that
assumes the future will mimic the past.
The fact of anthropogenic climate means
that any future premised on hydrocar-
bon-fueled growth is out of the question.
Unless the United States recognizes and
acts on this fact, oil may end up posing a
greater risk to its hegemony than coal did
for British primacy.

In the United States, the oil and gas
industry has long enjoyed special politi-
cal privileges (tax breaks and incentives)
and has used them to stifle alternatives.
Preserving control over the access to
oil and the global oil market has also

encouraged the United States to devote
vast resources to the strategic sinkhole
that is the Middle East.41 This status quo
no longer seems tenable. Even before the
recent pandemic, climate change threat-
ened to turn the oil and gas industries’
reserves into stranded assets and therefore
erode the industry’s financial and political
power.42 And the opportunity costs of
delaying action must not be overlooked.
The United States stopped investing in
battery technology after World War II
because oil was so cheap and plentiful.
Conversely, China currently possesses
the lion’s share of minerals essential for
lithium batteries and has undertaken the
leading role in the latter’s construction.43

Perhaps most important, China is
poised to take a decisive role in the global
effort to curtail carbon dioxide emissions.
On the one hand, this is welcome news
from the country with the largest share of
emissions. On the other hand, it is wor-
rying because American denialism about

Kuwaiti oil well control specialists direct fire control rig over oil well fire in order to complete water blasting method to extinguish fire at Rumaila Oil Field,
in southern Iraq, as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, March 27, 2003 (U.S. Army/James P. Johnson)

JFQ 102, 3rd Quarter 2021 Toprani 35

climate change and China’s growing im-
portance within the global economy are
both forcing stalwart U.S. allies such as
the Europeans to seek collaboration with
Beijing, even as China’s foreign policy
becomes more bellicose.44

Hydrocarbons were undeniably a
necessary condition for Anglo-American
predominance, but there is a possibil-
ity that the latter can thrive only if the
world depends on the former for its
energy needs. The era of Euro-American
predominance was always an outlier in
human history; until at least the 15th
century, if not the 18th century, Asia
accounted for a larger share of global
economy activity because of its larger
population and more efficient administra-
tive and production techniques.45 What
if the transition away from hydrocarbons
accelerates the process of the world
returning to a premodern economic
balance of power—that is to say, an Asia-
dominated or even Sino-centric world
order?

To return to the introductory thesis,
it was the combination of American
industrial power and American pre-
ponderant influence over the global oil
trade that served as a key pillar of U.S.
hegemony after 1945. If there is indeed a
close link between the control of energy
and geopolitical primacy or even hege-
mony, then China appears well positioned
to leapfrog the United States in a world
that depends on renewables rather than
fossil fuels for its energy needs.46 JFQ

Notes

1 See, for example, G. John Ikenberry, A
World Safe for Democracy: Liberal Interna-
tionalism and the Crises of Global Order (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2020).

2 Perry Anderson, The H-Word: The
Peripeteia of Hegemony (London: Verso Books,
2017).

3 This is the core of Graham Allison’s
theory in Destined for War: Can America and
China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017).

4 Contrast Kori Schake, Safe Passage: The
Transition from British to American Hegemony
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2017); Peter J. Hugill, “The American Chal-

lenge to British Hegemony, 1861–1947,” Geo-
graphical Review 99, no. 3 (2009), 403–425.

5 Charles P. Kindleberger, The World in
Depression, 1929–1939 (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1986).

6 Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World
Politics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 1981), 186; Peter J. Hugill, Transition
in Power: Technological “Warfare” and the
Shift from British to American Hegemony Since
1919 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2018),
chapter 1.

7 Robert E. Hannigan, The New World
Power: American Foreign Policy, 1898–1917
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
2013); The Great War and American Foreign
Policy, 1914–1924 (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2017).

8 Paul M. Kennedy, “Strategy Versus
Finance in Twentieth-Century Great Britain,”
The International History Review 3, no. 1
(1981), 44–61.

9 P.J. Cain and A.G. Hopkins, British
Imperialism: 1688–2015, 3rd ed. (London:
Routledge, 2016); Lance E. Davis and Robert
A. Huttenback, with the assistance of Susan
Gray Davis, Mammon and the Pursuit of Em-
pire: The Political Economy of British Imperial-
ism, 1860–1912 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1988); Patrick K. O’Brien,
“The Costs and Benefits of British Imperialism,
1846–1914,” Past & Present, no. 120 (1988),
163–200; Paul Kennedy, “Debate: The Costs
and Benefits of British Imperialism 1846–
1914,” Past & Present 125 (1989), 186–192;
Patrick K. O’Brien, “The Costs and Benefits of
British Imperialism 1846–1914: Reply,” Past &
Present 125 (1989), 192–199.

10 Barry J. Eichengreen, Golden Fetters:
The Gold Standard and the Great Depression,
1919–1939 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1992), summarized in “The Gold Standard and
the Great Depression,” NBER Reporter (Spring
1991), 5–9; Mark Metzler, Lever of Empire: The
International Gold Standard and the Crisis of
Liberalism in Prewar Japan (Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press, 2006).

11 Patrick O’Brien, “The Myth of An-
glophone Succession,” New Left Review 24
(2003), 113–134.

12 Halford John Mackinder, “The Geo-
graphical Pivot of History,” Geographical Jour-
nal 23, no. 4 (1904), 421–437. These ideas are
developed further in Paul M. Kennedy, “Mahan
Versus Mackinder,” Militaergeschichtliche
Zeitschrift 16, no. 2 (1974), 39–66.

13 John Brewer, The Sinews of Power: War,
Money, and the English State, 1688–1783 (Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990);
Nicholas A.M. Rodger, “War as an Economic
Activity in the ‘Long’ Eighteenth Century,”
International Journal of Maritime History 22,
no. 2 (2010), 1–18.

14 Michael Howard, The Continental Com-
mitment: The Dilemma of British Defence Policy
in the Era of the Two World Wars (London:

Maurice Temple Smith Limited, 1972).
15 Patrick K. O’Brien, “Imperialism and

the Rise and Decline of the British Economy,
1688–1989,” New Left Review 238 (1999),
48–80.

16 Melvyn P. Leffler, A Preponderance of
Power: National Security, the Truman Admin-
istration, and the Cold War (Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press, 1992); Elliott V.
Converse III, Circling the Earth: United States
Plans for a Postwar Overseas Military Base Sys-
tem, 1942–1948 (Maxwell Air Force Base, AL:
Air University Press, 2005).

17 Michael J. Hogan, A Cross of Iron: Harry
S. Truman and the Origins of the National
Security State, 1945–1954 (Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2000); Aaron
L. Friedberg, In the Shadow of the Garrison
State: America’s Anti-Statism and Its Cold War
Grand Strategy (Princeton: Princeton Uni-
versity Press, 2000); Benjamin O. Fordham,
“Paying for Global Power: Costs and Benefits
of Postwar U.S. Military Spending,” in The
Long War: A New History of U.S. National
Security Policy Since World War II, ed. Andrew
J. Bacevich (New York: Columbia University
Press, 2007), 371–404.

18 Barry Eichengreen, Exorbitant Privilege:
The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future
of the International Monetary System (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2011); Victoria de
Grazia, Irresistible Empire: America’s Advance
Through Twentieth-Century Europe (Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009).

19 Herman Mark Schwartz, “The Dollar and
Empire,” Phenomenal World, July 16, 2020,
available at .

20 Rosemary A. Kelanic, Black Gold and
Blackmail: Oil and Great Power Politics (Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press, 2020).

21 Anand Toprani, Oil and the Great Powers:
Britain and Germany, 1914 to 1945 (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2019).

22 Anand Toprani, “A Primer on the Geo-
politics of Oil,” War on the Rocks, January 17,
2019, available at .

23 Jay Sexton, “Steam Transport, Sover-
eignty, and Empire in North America, Circa
1850–1885,” The Journal of the Civil War Era
7, no. 4 (2017), 620–647.

24 Bernard Brodie, Sea Power in the Machine
Age (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1941); John H. Maurer, “Fuel and the Battle
Fleet: Coal, Oil, and American Naval Strategy,
1898–1925,” Naval War College Review 34,
no. 6 (1981), 60–77; Steven Gray, Steam Power
and Sea Power: Coal, the Royal Navy, and the
British Empire, c. 1870–1914 (London: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2018).

25 Alfred T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea
Power upon History, 1660–1783 (Boston: Little,
Brown and Company, 1890), 25–28; Rodger,
“War as an Economic Activity.”

Looking for this or a Similar Assignment? Click below to Place your Order