This one is probably a bit obvious at this point but since I am the first to post, here it is.
In the second chapter Williamson does a case study which asks the question “Was Mars always either dry or not dry? He argues that this question is philosophical in nature and not about language or thought, but must be resolved with inquiry into thought and language. This conclusion supports the book’s overall arguments, namely that topical philosophical exceptionalism and methodological philosophical exceptionalism are false. It supports these conclusions because it shows that (at least in some instances) some of the traditional views on the subject matter of philosophy are false, namely the conceptual/linguistic turn. Also that the ways in which philosophical questions are answered are not fundamentally different from the ways other non philosophical questions are answered.

A. The original question is philosophical in nature.
B. The original is not about language or thought.
C. The original must be resolved with inquiry into thought and language.
1. (A & B & C) -> The original question supports the conclusion that topical philosophical exceptionalism and methodological philosophical exceptionalism are false.
2. :. The original question supports the conclusion that topical philosophical exceptionalism and methodological philosophical exceptionalism are false.
I will now argue against A. William claims that “[t]he original question is at least proto-philosophical in character.” He also claims that the sentence “Was Mars always either uninhabited or not dry?” is not philosophical in nature. The only support Williamson provides that the original question is a philosophical in nature is that “when we discuss its answer, we find ourselves invoking recognizable philosophical considerations.” However, by this logic the sentence “Was Mars always either uninhabited or not dry?” would be considered philosophical in nature if it invokes recognizable philosophical considerations.” Williamson himself admits that this question invokes recognizable philosophical considerations in the following passage: “Although philosophical issues can be raised about the words in both questions, it does not follow that merely in using those words one is in any way engaging in philosophy.” Williamson seems to be contradicting himself.
Thanks to Justin and Chris for addressing this in class. Comments?