I realize that this isn’t exactly a philosophical question but I’ve tried asking it elsewhere, to no avail. Can anyone help? I'm studying at home with two books on critical reasoning that are recommended in some philosophy introductions. I think I've done ok with most of the exercises so far, but I've really struggled with the sections on identifying implicit assumptions (context, underlying, additional reasons/ enthymemes, intermediate conclusions etc.). Is there anyone on this panel who is aware of any other resource which gives further opportunity to practice identifying implicit assumptions, and gives answers? Old law-school admission tests or something? I've gone through all the exercises in both books now, and unfortunately the answers are heavily etched into memory, so they’re no longer practice. If not then perhaps some general tips? Any help would be valuable, as it would seem to be a serious hurdle for me. I’m trying to ease back into the realms of academia after having three children and...

Is Philosophy part of the Humanities? If it isn't, what is it then? Kind of science of methods or science of structures or metascience?

I have a few friends who are professional philosophers and who recognize the strength of arguments for vegetarianism, who say they don´t have counter arguments but still don't turn vegetarian. Is rational argument really persuasive? Or can't Mark Rowlands ever convince Roger Scruton that hunting is immoral? What is the authority of moral reasoning? Is there something one can do through reason to persuade the sensible knave?

How do I become smarter? I want to read works from authors such as Locke, Plato, Aristotle, etc. But I do not know which books will lead me to understanding. Any help?

If time is not an object how can the phrase "I don't have enough time" be considered possessive?

What are the ethics of anonymity? When do people have a right to remain anonymous, and when are they obligated to reveal their association with their actions?

When philosophers say that something is morally relevant or that a reason is a moral reason, what does "moral" mean? What makes moral reasons different from other reasons? Can something be both selfish and moral?

What exactly is evidence, and why do some maintain that we should not expect to find any evidence of God? What's the problem with rejecting the God idea based on lack of evidence? Sorry I can't be more specific.

Can it be true, as I've heard, that most philosophers -- or at least philosophers of the Anglo-American School -- assume that language is required for conscious thought? Or is that just a radical minority?

I have a question/argument that straddles the free will debate, philosophy of mind and evolution. I hope it is not too bad. Suppose all of our actions are determined by the conjunction of natural laws and the history of the world and thereby we are deeply misguided in our view of ourselves as free, autonomous beings. My question is then, from an evolutionary perspective, why would we evolve to have this illusion about ourselves? Wouldn't philosophical zombies with no consciousness be simpler entities and thereby more likely to evolve? If consciousness does not really have any causal efficacy (in the libertarian sense), why do we have it?