Cumulative level test: Knowledge: luck, reasons and social inquiry

Check understanding, separately from reading

10 questions · 80% to pass · no timer. This longer test revisits both units in the level. These authored questions assess recognition and application of the taught distinctions, not professional qualification. You may review the lessons and retry. Repeat attempts reuse the question bank; a remembered answer is not proof of transfer to a new situation.

Saving a lesson records reading only. Previous lesson completions have not been converted into passing scores. You can continue reading without a pass; the assessment remains unpassed.

Question 1

A reliable-looking clock stopped earlier, but you consult it at the moment its hands happen to show the correct time. Your belief is true and ordinarily supported by looking at a clock, yet its truth is accidental. A functioning clock would connect your reading to the changing time rather than coincidence.

Question 2

A photograph seems to show a blue fabric. A trustworthy physical inspection reporting red is rebutting evidence. Learning that the camera applied an unknown color filter undercuts the photograph as evidence, but does not by itself establish red, green, or any particular color.

Question 3

Two people have indistinguishable visual experiences, but one sees normally while the other is systematically deceived. An access-focused view can assign similar internal justification. A reliability-focused view can distinguish the processes’ connection to truth. Their disagreement concerns the standard, not the stipulated experiences.

Question 4

A reader identifies a label in fog. Classifying the event as ordinary reading may rate it highly; classifying it as reading faint labels in fog may not. Describing it as “the process that produced this correct answer” trivially guarantees success and avoids the real evaluation.

Question 5

Asked why you trust a document, you cite an archive; asked why you trust the archive, you cite records. Stopping at direct observation raises the question of why it is basic. Appealing to a network of mutually supporting records raises the question of independent contact with the world.

Question 6

Three news summaries all cite the same unnamed witness. Their agreement may show faithful copying, not three confirmations. A separate observer with direct access adds a different evidential route. Source tracing matters even when all summaries are sincere and polished.

Question 7

Two careful readers inspect the same ambiguous sentence and reach opposite interpretations. Learning of the disagreement gives each reason to recheck scope and context. If one had missed a crucial paragraph, the evidential situation would no longer be symmetric.

Question 8

A competent witness is dismissed as irrational solely because of a stigmatized identity: a credibility deficit driven by prejudice. Separately, workers may lack a shared, institutionally recognized vocabulary to describe a recurring form of mistreatment, making reports difficult to articulate and understand.

Question 9

A person remembers a museum’s usual hours. A casual friend says “she knows it is open”; a speaker planning an irreplaceable visit demands ruling out a special closure. Contextualism locates a possible shift in the speakers’ standards for “knows,” not in whether the museum is actually open.

Question 10

A historical claim appears in several articles that copy one memoir. The memoirist had access but wrote long afterward; an independent dated letter conflicts with part of the story. An audit separates dependence, memory limitations, and specific rebuttal, then narrows the claim rather than accepting or rejecting the entire memoir wholesale.

Continuing does not mark this assessment passed.