P1 Every material is made up of particles

P2 Particles occupy space

P3 Particles don’t overlap

C1 Each material occupies a unique portion of space (P1+P2+P3)

P4 My mind, my emotions and beliefs do not have a height width or depth

P5 Things that do not have a height width or depth do not occupy space

C2 My mind, my emotions and beliefs do not occupy space (P4+P5)

P6 My mind, my emotions and beliefs are either material or non-material

C3 My mind, my emotions and beliefs must be non-material (C1+C2+P6)

P7 My mind, my emotions and beliefs are thought-like

P8 Non-materials do not have a measurable height, width, depth etc.

C4 If you can’t measure somethings height, width, depth etc. then it must be a thought-like
substance. (C3+P7+P8)

P9 If something is non-material it is immaterial

P10 If ghosts are immaterial then they are thought-like

P11 We can’t see thought-like things

P12 We can see ghosts

C5 Ghosts are not immaterial (C4+P9+P10+P11+P12)

P13 If ghosts are real they must be material or immaterial

C6 If ghosts are real they must be material (C5+P13)

P14 Ghosts are insubstantial

P15 Ghosts can pass through solids objects

P16 Material objects cannot pass through solid objects

P17 Material objects are not insubstantial

C7 Ghosts are not material (P14+P15+P16+P17)

C8 Ghosts are not real (C6+C7)

P18 If ghosts are not real they must be imaginary

P19 Hallucinations are imaginary

C Ghosts must be hallucinations (C8+P18+P19)

Question B
Question C

Concluding that ghosts must be hallucinations is a reasoning error because that is not the only
possible conclusion to draw. For example, ghosts might be an optical illusion rather than a
hallucination. This is another plausible and logical conclusion to draw.

Saying “So ghosts must be material or immaterial” is a fallacy of unacceptable premises, of ‘begging
the question’ because it assumes the very thing that the argument aims to disprove, that ghosts are
real. Saying “So ghosts must be material or immaterial” assumes that ghosts are in fact real, which
conflicts with the conclusion that ghosts are not real and are instead hallucinations.

Question D

I find the main argument to be weak because the conclusion is not the only one that can be reached
from the premises, as mentioned in question C above. The use of ‘must’ in the conclusion is
replaceable by ‘therefore’ rather than ‘therefore probably’, yet other conclusions can be reached.

C1 is cogent and convincing because it has no questionable premises.

C2 is weak and unconvincing because its premises are disagreeable, such mental processes are the
product of the complex physical system that is the brain and can be observed and quantified to
some degree, ie, the detection of brain waves, regional brain activity when specific emotions are
expressed.

C2 is a premise of C3, and is flawed so C3 is as a result, also flawed.

Each sub conclusion is a premise of the next sub conclusion except for C7 whose premises do not
contain sub arguments. So C4, C5, C6, C8 all have fake premises and are therefore poor arguments.

C7 is also weak because its premise P16 “Material objects cannot pass through solid objects” is false
in that material objects like water and gases can move through membranes.

Question E

P Light is not a physical material, it is a wave that occupies no volume and yet it is observable
and detectable.

P The mind, emotions and beliefs are emergent properties of complex physical interactions
between atoms, ion and molecules in the brain that are observable and measurable.

(see analysis of C2 in above question)

Question F

CC: Ghost and UFO reports are similar.

S1: Both ghost sightings and UFO sightings are numerous

S2: There is no absolute proof for either ghosts or UFOs

S3: People tend to draw conclusions based on what is the easiest to understand

D1: Ghost ‘encounters’ are much older than UFOs

D2: People often fabricate ghosts as a coping mechanism for lost loved ones

AA: Despite advanced technology UFOs have not been proven to exist

Therefore probably,

C: Ghost do not exist.