Choose one of the following passages and answer the following two questions about it: (a) What is author's argument in this passage? (b) If you disagree with the conclusion, what might

be a reasonable objection to this ar- gument? If you agree with the conclusion, what might be an additional argument in support of this conclusion? Passage 1: The new problem for universals concerns instantiation. To instantiate a property is simply to have that property. For example, when you are happy, universalists claim that you are instantiating the universal property, happiness. This claim seems to imply that there is a relation between you and happiness, namely, instantiation. Suppose that we apply the universal theory to instantiation, just as it is supposed to apply to other ways that things are related. Then your being happy includes you, happiness, and a third thing, instantiation, that relates you to happiness. This same relation of instantiation would likewise relate any other universal property to the things that have the property. So the universalist view implies that instantiation is a universal, a universal that is a relation. This seems to be what the theory has to say, and by itself, it does not seem bad. But this is only the beginning. The theory now finds three things in the fact that you are happy: you, happiness, and instantiation. Yet if there are these three things in that fact, then they are related in a certain way. You are related to instantiation and happiness by bearing the instantiation relation to happiness. Concerning this claim, though, if it states a fact, then another application of the universalist view seems to imply that there is a fourth thing involved. The theory seems to imply that there is a ‘bearing-to' relation that holds among the three things: you, happiness, and instantiation. If there is any such fourth thing, then it does not stop there. Those four are also related, and so the theory says that there are five, and they are related, and so on without end. Sider and Conee, p. 165-166/nSome pointers: • Reading philosophy is hard. Don't expect the answers to the questions to be obvious just from a quick reading of the text. Expect to have to read it several times. Expect to change your mind several times about exactly what your answers will be. • 500 words is the overall word limit. You should decide for yourself how much of this space you devote to Question (a) and how much to Question (b). Sometimes it might be possible to explain an argument very quickly, in which case you'll have a lot of room to consider objections. Sometimes it might be the other way around. • When addressing Question (a) start by trying to identify the argument's conclusion. Then ask yourself whether the author is attempting to present a deductively valid argument, or whether the argument has some other form. If it's intended to be a deductively valid argument, you should be able to identify the premisses, and see why the author thinks the conclusion follows. If it's an inference to the best explanation, you should be able to identify the phenomenon that the author's favoured proposal is supposed to explain. • In some cases, the passage presents a relatively self-contained argument. In others, the argument presented in the passage depends on claims that the author makes elsewhere in the text, so that rendering his or her reasoning explicit will require explaining those other claims. IN ALL CASES, UNDERSTANDING THE PASSAGE AND THE MATERIAL WELL ENOUGH TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS WILL REQUIRE YOU TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE READING. • When addressing Question (b), try to find the weak points in the argument, or think of ways to improve on the argument. If you've decided that the author is attempting a deductively valid argument, ask yourself whether it really is valid. If it is valid, ask yourself whether its premisses are all true. If it's not valid, ask yourself whether there 2 is an obvious extra premiss that would be needed to make it valid, and whether that premiss is true. If it's an inference to the best explanation, ask yourself whether the phenomenon that allegedly needs explanation is a genuine phenomenon, whether the proposal we're being asked to accept is a good explanation, and whether there are other explanations equally good that the author hasn't ruled out.