| a. Thinking a lot | ||
| b. Eliminating flaws and biases in one’s thinking | ||
| c. Suspending one’s judgment | ||
| d. A and B | ||
| e. B and C |
| a. Understanding the logical connections between ideas | ||
| b. Inventing new concepts and possibilities | ||
| c. Identifying, constructing, and evaluating arguments | ||
| d. Detecting inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning | ||
| e. Identify the relevance and importance of ideas |
| a. Examining claims for possible biases | ||
| b. Accumulating a large amount of information | ||
| c. Maintaining beliefs from one’s upbringing | ||
| d. Basing one’s beliefs on the advice of experts | ||
| e. Dismissing evidence |
| a. There are definite rules for reasoning correctly | ||
| b. Correct reasoning can be improved by practice | ||
| c. How much you know will always affect your ability to reason correctly | ||
| d. Intellectual laziness can prevent one from reasoning correctly | ||
| e. Reviewing one’s mistakes is crucial to improving one’s reasoning |
| a. The meaning of conversational speech | ||
| b. The truth or falsity of the statement | ||
| c. The context in which the statement was uttered | ||
| d. The emotional content of the statement | ||
| e. The scientific value of the statement |
| a. Reportive definition | ||
| b. Stipulative definition | ||
| c. Precising definition | ||
| d. Persuasive definition | ||
| e. Dictionary definition |
| a. Inconsistent | ||
| b. Circular | ||
| c. Too wide | ||
| d. Too narrow | ||
| e. Too obscure |
| a. The participants disagree about the facts | ||
| b. The participants hold differing opinions | ||
| c. The participants appeal to different authorities | ||
| d. The participants base their positions on emotion | ||
| e. The participants tacitly employ different definitions |
| a. It is impossible to have Y without X | ||
| b. It is possible to have Y without X | ||
| c. Y is sometimes present when X is not | ||
| d. X is sometimes present when Y is not | ||
| e. The presence of X guarantees the presence of Y |
| a. Paul buying me a steak is a necessary condition for me to drive to Texas with him. | ||
| b. Paul buying me a steak is a sufficient condition for me to drive to Texas with him. | ||
| c. Paul buying me a steak is a necessary and sufficient condition for me to drive to Texas with him. | ||
| d. Paul buying me a steak is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for me to drive to Texas with him. | ||
| e. Driving to Texas with Paul is a necessary condition for him buying me a steak. |
| a. Logical necessity | ||
| b. Empirical necessity | ||
| c. Causal necessity | ||
| d. Legal Necessity | ||
| e. None of the above |
| a. Referential ambiguity | ||
| b. Syntactic ambiguity | ||
| c. Vagueness | ||
| d. Incomplete meaning | ||
| e. Empty content |
| a. Bill cannot come to work today because he hurt his back. | ||
| b. I asked you on Monday to finish that report for me today. I asked you for it again on Tuesday. Where is it? | ||
| c. I will pay my taxes. After all, I do not want the government to take my house, and that is what they will do if I do not pay my taxes. | ||
| d. All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. So were about half of the Greeks. | ||
| e. Money only causes problems. When I was young, we were very poor. I was only allowed to eat breakfast on the weekends. |
| a. Moons are celestial bodies that orbit around planets | ||
| b. The Earth cannot be a moon | ||
| c. The Earth does not orbit around a planet | ||
| d. A and B | ||
| e. A and C |
| a. They comprise an argument | ||
| b. They comprise a valid argument | ||
| c. They comprise a sound argument | ||
| d. A and B | ||
| e. A, B, and C |
| a. All sound arguments are valid | ||
| b. All valid arguments are sound | ||
| c. All unsound arguments are invalid | ||
| d. A and B | ||
| e. A, B, and C |
| a. Modus ponens | ||
| b. Modus tollens | ||
| c. Hypothetical syllogism | ||
| d. Disjunctive syllogism | ||
| e. Reductio ad absurdum |
| a. Headaches are uncomfortable | ||
| b. It is better to treat a headache than let it be | ||
| c. We are all out of ibuprofen | ||
| d. If I take an aspirin my headache will subside | ||
| e. Aspirin is cheap at the corner store |
| a. Valid | ||
| b. Sound | ||
| c. Strong | ||
| d. True | ||
| e. False |
| a. They are deductively sound | ||
| b. They have true premises | ||
| c. They are either valid or strong | ||
| d. Their premises are relevant to their conclusion | ||
| e. Their premises do not beg the question |
| a. Arrows pointing from one co-premise to the others | ||
| b. Arrows pointing from the co-premises to the conclusion they support | ||
| c. Lines that merge beneath the co-premises and form an arrow pointing to the conclusion they support | ||
| d. Lines that divide beneath the conclusion and point to the premises that support it | ||
| e. Arrows pointing from the conclusion to the co-premises |
| a. Inductive | ||
| b. Deductive | ||
| c. Sound | ||
| d. Valid | ||
| e. Analogical |
| a. Every whale is a mammal. Moby Dick is a whale. So Moby Dick is a mammal. | ||
| b. Every whale is a mammal. Every mammal is an animal. So every whale is an animal. | ||
| c. Every whale is a mammal. Nemo is not a mammal. So Nemo is not a whale. | ||
| d. If Moby Dick is clever, he will get away. But Moby Dick is not clever. Therefore, he will not get away. | ||
| e. No whale is an insect. Moby Dick is a whale. So Moby Dick is not an insect. |
| a. Fallacy of inconsistency | ||
| b. Fallacy of relevance | ||
| c. Fallacy of insufficient evidence | ||
| d. Fallacy of inappropriate presumption | ||
| e. Fallacy of affirming the consequent |
| a. False dilemma | ||
| b. Ad hominem | ||
| c. Red herring | ||
| d. Affirming the consequent | ||
| e. Genetic fallacy |
| a. The conclusion does not follow from the premises | ||
| b. A personal attack is given in place of a reason | ||
| c. A word changes meaning mid-argument | ||
| d. Only a limited set of alternatives are presented | ||
| e. The conclusion is assumed in one of the premises |
| a. Confirmation bias | ||
| b. Framing bias | ||
| c. Overconfidence effect | ||
| d. Clustering illusion | ||
| e. Gambler's fallacy |
| a. Appeal to authority | ||
| b. Appeal to common belief | ||
| c. Appeal to fear | ||
| d. Appeal to vanity | ||
| e. Appeal to wishful thinking |
| a. Concluding that X caused Y because X was close to Y in space | ||
| b. Concluding that X caused Y because X followed Y in time | ||
| c. Concluding that X caused Y because Y followed X in time | ||
| d. Concluding that X could not have caused Y because X followed Y in time | ||
| e. Concluding that X could not have caused Y because Y followed X in time |
| a. Clouds make it rain, since it always starts to rain after clouds have formed. | ||
| b. Finding four-leaf clovers is good luck, since something terrific always happens after you find one. | ||
| c. News about employment is bad for the stock market, since the market always falls on days when bad employment figures are released. | ||
| d. Boiling the water makes it safer to drink, since nobody got sick anymore after we started doing it. | ||
| e. Drinking warm milk helps me relax, since I always fall asleep after drinking some. |
| a. Ad hominem | ||
| b. Red herring | ||
| c. Bandwagon fallacy | ||
| d. Straw man | ||
| e. Moralistic fallacy |
| a. One appeals to a dubious authority in order to support one's claims. | ||
| b. One assumes that since X follows Y in time, that Y bust by the cause of X. | ||
| c. One attributes views to one's opponent that they do not hold. | ||
| d. One is influenced by the issue being framed in a positive or negative manner. | ||
| e. One assumes that the parts have the some properties as the whole. |
| a. False equity | ||
| b. False compromise | ||
| c. Equivocation | ||
| d. False dilemma | ||
| e. Appeal to ignorance |
| a. Equivocation | ||
| b. Suppressed evidence | ||
| c. Straw man | ||
| d. Fallacy of composition | ||
| e. Slippery slope |
| a. "Until the bank can demonstrate that I stole the money, I should be allowed to go free." | ||
| b. "Nobody in the bank saw me steal the money, so I could not have done it." | ||
| c. "Whenever Judge Punishment is trying the case, you know that justice will not be served." | ||
| d. "I am innocent of robbing this bank. Everyone in town knows that I am a trustworthy person." | ||
| e. "I may have robbed the bank, but I only did it because I have to pay my poor child's medical bills." |
| a. "Either you're with me or you're against me." | ||
| b. "There are two kinds of people in this world: dishonest ones and fools." | ||
| c. "You can either divorce him or you can put up with his abuse." | ||
| d. "The mailbox is either empty or it's not." | ||
| e. "Politicians are either corrupt or they fail." |
| a. It is topic neutral | ||
| b. Its principles are necessary | ||
| c. Its principles are non-contingent | ||
| d. It models the psychology of reasoning | ||
| e. It is often defined as a formal system |
| a. Two plus two equals three. | ||
| b. The prime minister has his tea everyday after lunch. | ||
| c. Get in the house right now! | ||
| d. It is unlawful to eat watermelons on the steps of the Capitol. | ||
| e. Whenever I see willow trees I get really sad. |
| a. "Tom is very happy." | ||
| b. "Tom is not very depressed." | ||
| c. "It is not the case that Tom is very depressed." | ||
| d. "Tom is very impressed." | ||
| e. "Someone other than Tom is very depressed." |
| a. Simple sentences | ||
| b. Complex sentences | ||
| c. Sets of one or more sentences | ||
| d. Sets of two or more sentences | ||
| e. Sets of three or more sentences |
| a. X is true | ||
| b. X is false | ||
| c. It is unknown whether X is true or false | ||
| d. Y entails X | ||
| e. X and Y are inconsistent |
| a. X is true | ||
| b. X is false | ||
| c. Y is false | ||
| d. A and C | ||
| e. E and C |
| a. ~UIOP | ||
| b. UIOP->QERT | ||
| c. (UIOP->QERT) | ||
| d. A and B | ||
| e. A and C |
| a. Antecedent | ||
| b. Consequent | ||
| c. Conditional | ||
| d. Connective | ||
| e. Conjunct |
| a. (P&Q) | ||
| b. ((P&Q)&R) | ||
| c. S | ||
| d. Q | ||
| e. R |
| a. P is true and Q is true | ||
| b. P is true and Q if false | ||
| c. P is false and Q is true | ||
| d. A and B | ||
| e. B and C |
| a. P is true and Q is true | ||
| b. P is true and Q is false | ||
| c. P is false and Q is true | ||
| d. P is false and Q is false | ||
| e. All of the above |
| a. ((P&Q)->~R) | ||
| b. ((P&Q)^~R) | ||
| c. (~(P&Q)->R) | ||
| d. (~(P&Q)->~R) | ||
| e. ~(P&Q)->R |
| a. ((P->Q)&R) is false | ||
| b. ((P->Q)&R) is true | ||
| c. (P<->(Q<->R)) is true | ||
| d. A and C | ||
| e. B and C |
| a. One member | ||
| b. One or more members | ||
| c. An infinite number of members | ||
| d. No members | ||
| e. All of the above |
| a. Some P are Q | ||
| b. Some Q are P | ||
| c. Nothing is Q | ||
| d. A and C | ||
| e. B and C |
| a. Nothing | ||
| b. Everything | ||
| c. The class of things that are neither P nor Q | ||
| d. A and C | ||
| e. B and C |
| a. Every P is Q | ||
| b. Every Q is P | ||
| c. Everything is P | ||
| d. Everything is Q | ||
| e. Everything is Q but not P |
| a. Everything is P or Q | ||
| b. Every P is Q | ||
| c. Everything is P but not Q | ||
| d. Everything is Q but not P | ||
| e. Nothing is Q |
| a. Everything is P or Q | ||
| b. Nothing is both P and Q | ||
| c. Every P is Q | ||
| d. Every Q is P | ||
| e. Every P is Q and every Q is P |
| a. Some A are C | ||
| b. Something is A if and only if it is not C | ||
| c. Everything is B | ||
| d. A and C | ||
| e. B and C |
| a. Something is both A and C | ||
| b. Something is A and B but not C | ||
| c. Something is A but not B or C | ||
| d. A and B | ||
| e. B and C |
| a. Something is A, B, and C | ||
| b. Everything is A | ||
| c. Something is A but not B | ||
| d. A and B | ||
| e. A, B, and C |
| a. Valid | ||
| b. Invalid |
| a. Diagrams with more than three circles are difficult to work with | ||
| b. They have limited expressive power | ||
| c. They are subject to multiple interpretations | ||
| d. A and B | ||
| e. A, B and C |
| a. A confirmed hypothesis increases the probability that a theory is true | ||
| b. A confirmed hypothesis establishes that a theory is true | ||
| c. A confirmed hypothesis indicates that alternative hypotheses need not be taken into account | ||
| d. A disconfirmed hypothesis indicates that a theory is false | ||
| e. A disconfirmed hypothesis decreases the probability that a theory is false |
| a. Evaluate the logical consistency of the hypothesis and the predictions | ||
| b. Use experiments to check whether predictions are correct | ||
| c. If the predictions are correct, then the hypothesis is confirmed. If not, then the hypothesis is disconfirmed | ||
| d. Identify the hypothesis to be tested | ||
| e. Generate prediction from the hypothesis |
| a. Establish the truth or falsity of scientific theories | ||
| b. Confirm or disconfirm hypothesis on the basis of the predictions they generate | ||
| c. Minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment | ||
| d. A and B | ||
| e. B and C |
| a. An inference from an infinite sample to a specific conclusion | ||
| b. An inference from a finite sample to a specific conclusion | ||
| c. An inference from an infinite sample to a general conclusion | ||
| d. An inference from a finite sample to a general conclusion | ||
| e. An inference from a singular piece of data to a general conclusion |
| a. Which theory more precisely identifies the causal mechanism behind the phenomena in question | ||
| b. Which theory is accepted by the most prominent scientists | ||
| c. Which theory explains a greater number of phenomena | ||
| d. Which theory involves the least number of assumptions | ||
| e. Which theory coheres best with the existing body of scientific theories |
| a. Difference | ||
| b. Concomitant variation | ||
| c. Agreement | ||
| d. Residues | ||
| e. The joint method |
| a. Consider cases in which great intelligence occurs in the absence of large noses | ||
| b. Consider cases in which large noses occur in the absence of great intelligence | ||
| c. Consider whether there is another factor that is the cause of both having a large nose and greater intelligence | ||
| d. A and B | ||
| e. A, B and C |
| a. Saccharine causes obesity in children | ||
| b. Sacharine contributes to obesity in children | ||
| c. Obese children are more likely to crave saccharine | ||
| d. Saccharine consumption correlates with childhood obesity | ||
| e. Childhood obesity is a contributing cause of saccharine consumption |
| a. Provide a convenient means of representing causal loops | ||
| b. Help to differentiate causation from mere correlation | ||
| c. Help to differentiate between major and minor causes | ||
| d. Provide statistical information about causal links | ||
| e. Provide a convenient top-to-bottom visual representation of causes |
| a. Fallacy of reversing causal directoin | ||
| b. Fallacy of mistaking correlation with causation | ||
| c. Fallacy of confusing good causal consequences with reasons for belief | ||
| d. Genetic fallacy | ||
| e. Fallacy of the single cause |
| a. It posits a correlation based on insufficient evidence | ||
| b. It assumes that not washing his hands is the only significant difference between the day he got the flu and every other day | ||
| c. It fails to take into account that he may have failed to wash his hands because he had the flu, and not the other way around. | ||
| d. A and B | ||
| e. B and C |
| a. Reasoning from specific cases to a general conclusion | ||
| b. Reasoning from general principles to a specific prediction | ||
| c. Reasoning from past regularities to predictions about the future events | ||
| d. A and B | ||
| e. B and C |
| a. A comes before B in time | ||
| b. B comes before A in time | ||
| c. A and B occur simultaneously | ||
| d. A never occurs in the absence of B | ||
| e. B never occurs in the absence of A |
| a. Empirical | ||
| b. Conceptual | ||
| c. Evaluative | ||
| d. Critical | ||
| e. Hypothetical |
| a. The distinction between intrinsic and instrumental values | ||
| b. Observations and experiments | ||
| c. Logic and the meaning of words | ||
| d. Statistical evidence | ||
| e. The help of experts in the relevant field |
| a. Take stock of all available evidence | ||
| b. Understand the nature of the problem | ||
| c. Monitor the outcome of the plan | ||
| d. Draw up a plan to solve the problem | ||
| e. Try out the plan |
| a. The hypothetical deductive method | ||
| b. The method of decomposition | ||
| c. The method of agreement | ||
| d. Venn diagrams | ||
| e. The method of difference |
| a. A square | ||
| b. An oval | ||
| c. A diamond | ||
| d. a parallelogram | ||
| e. An arrow |
| a. Flowchart | ||
| b. Decision Tree | ||
| c. Decision Table | ||
| d. A and B | ||
| e. B and C |
| a. Maximin | ||
| b. Maximax | ||
| c. Minimax regret | ||
| d. Opportunity loss | ||
| e. Principle of expected value |
| a. The value of a given option in the best possible scenario | ||
| b. The value of a given option in the worst possible scenario | ||
| c. The average value of a given option over the long run | ||
| d. The best outcome of taking the most conservative option | ||
| e. The worst outcome of taking the most risky option |
| a. The creation of new ideas and the modification of old ideas | ||
| b. The creation of new ideas the the creation of new connections between ideas | ||
| c. The creation of new ideas and the evaluation and modification of new ideas | ||
| d. The creation of artwork and expressing one's ideas and emotions through art | ||
| e. The creation of artwork and the modification of old ideas |
| a. Analogy | ||
| b. Search | ||
| c. Perspective shift | ||
| d. Feature list | ||
| e. Making new connections |
| a. Buying 100 dough balls | ||
| b. Buying 200 dough balls | ||
| c. Buying 400 dough balls | ||
| d. Buying 600 dough balls | ||
| e. Buying 800 dough balls |
| a. Moralistic fallacy | ||
| b. Naturalistic fallacy | ||
| c. Bandwagon fallacy | ||
| d. Fallacist's fallacy | ||
| e. Irrelevant appeal |
| a. Intrinsic value | ||
| b. Instrumental value | ||
| c. Extrinsic value | ||
| d. A and B | ||
| e. B and C |
| a. It is valued as a means to some end | ||
| b. It is valued as an end in itself | ||
| c. It is valued as a basic condition for human life | ||
| d. A and B | ||
| e. B and C |
| a. X is right because God says X is right | ||
| b. God says X is right because X is right | ||
| c. X is right for reasons independent of what God says | ||
| d. A and B | ||
| e. B and C |
| a. Murder must be impermissible because morality depends on God | ||
| b. If we believe that murder is impermissible, it is because we have interpreted God's will incorrectly | ||
| c. We cannot accept that murder is impermissible just because God says it is, since God himself may have independent grounds for believing that murder is impermissible | ||
| d. The impermissibility of murder cannot depend on God because different religions worship different gods | ||
| e. The impermissibility of murder cannot depend of God because it depends on whether the act was performed in self-defense |
| a. Moral absolutist | ||
| b. Moral contextualist | ||
| c. Moral relativist | ||
| d. Moral objectivist | ||
| e. Moral subjectivist |
| a. Each society possesses its own objective normative facts | ||
| b. What is right or wrong depends on the moral framework of the society in question | ||
| c. There are no objective normative facts | ||
| d. A and B | ||
| e. B and C |
| a. We have generated a moral principle by generalizing from a moral intuition | ||
| b. We have formulated a prediction about a concrete case based on a moral principle | ||
| c. We have tested a prediction against a moral intuition | ||
| d. We have adjusted a moral intuition to conform with a moral principle | ||
| e. We have adjusted a moral principle to conform with a moral intuition |
| a. There is nothing wrong with an animal altering its habitat. | ||
| b. In fact, there are no animals that do not alter their habitat in some way. | ||
| c. Human beings are no different. | ||
| d. Therefore, the human impact on the environment is natural and does not need to be scrutinized. | ||
| e. Global warming is just our way of making ourselves at home. |
| a. I have a claim-right against the plumber with regard to his fixing my sink. | ||
| b. The plumber has the privilege not to fix my sink. | ||
| c. I have a duty to see that the sink gets fixed. | ||
| d. I have a power over the plumber with respect to his fixing my sink. | ||
| e. The plumber has an immunity against me with respect to my not paying him. |
- Find Flashcards
- Make Flashcards
- Why It Works
- Tutors & resellers
- Content partnerships
- Teachers & professors
- Employee training
- Get Started
Brainscape's Knowledge Genome TM
Entrance exams, professional certifications.
- Foreign Languages
- Medical & Nursing
Humanities & Social Studies
Mathematics, health & fitness, business & finance, technology & engineering, food & beverage, random knowledge, see full index.
Critical Thinking Midterm > Final Exam Critical Thinking > Flashcards
Final Exam Critical Thinking Flashcards
The three criteria for evaluating an argument are
- acceptability, relevance, sufficiency
Which answer best describes “critical thinking”?
- the careful application of reason in the determination of whether a claim is true
What is a “premise”?
A claim offered as a reason for believing another claim
What is an “opinion”?
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
A premise to an argument is relevant to that arguments conclusion if:
The truth of the premise counts in favor of the arguments conclusion
The premises of argument are sufficient if
The premises, taken together, give a strong enough reason to accept the conclusion
An argument in which the conclusion cannot be false, if the premises are true
A deductive argument
An argument in which the conclusion is held to be improbable, if the premises are true
An inductive argument
A defect in an argument that consists in something other than merely false premises
An argument is cogent if
The acceptable, relevant premises are sufficient to support the conclusion
An argument is valid if
It is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is the false
What is the main difference between an “argument” and an “explanation”?
Explanations merely seek to inform, whereas argument seek to persuade
What is the basis for determining the relative weakness or strength of an argument?
The amount of support the premises provide for the conclusion
Judgments concerning “matters of taste” or ethical determinations are frequently said to be what?
Value judgements
Words which carry strong emotive value or associative power
Dysphemisms (loaded terms)
The discipline or practice frequently referred to as “the art of persuasion”
The fallacy of sliding from one meaning of a term to another in the middle of an argument. In other words, using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misdleading
Equivocation
A person who stands to gain soemthing from our belief in a claim is known as
An interested party
A person who does not stands to gain something from our belief in a claim is known as
A disinterested party
When a new or old term is designated to mean something distinct within a specific context, it is said to have
Stipulative definition
When an arguer attacks the person with whom they are arguing rather than that person argument
Argumentum ad hominem (argument against the person)
A form of ad hominem fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that an argument is wrong if the source making he claim has itself spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with it. The fallacy focuses on the perceived hypocrisy of the opponent rather than the merits of their argument
Ur quoque (you also)
The fallacy of arguing that a claim must be true merely because a substantial number of people believe it
Appeal to popularity
The fallacy of distorting, weakening, or oversimplifying someone’s position so that it can be more easily attacked or refuted
The straw man fallacy
The fallacy of arguing that a claim is true just because it has not been shown to be false
Appeal to ignorance
The fallacy of deliberately raising an irrelevant issue during an argument as a diversion or distraction from the main topic
The red herring fallacy
The error of thinking that previous events can effect the probabilities in the random event under consideration
The gamblers fallacy
The fallacy of drawing a conclusion about a target group based upon an inadequate sample size
Hasty generalization
The fallacy of pre-providing information which will create a bias against the speaker before they have a chance to offer their argument
Poisoning the well
The fallacy of citing a source whose credibility is in question
Appeal to unqualified authority
The fallacy of claiming that a moderate or sensible action will inevitably lead to an extreme action, therefor the moderate action should not be taken
The fallacy of slippery of slope
A fallacy involving circular reading in wherein the conclusion to the argument is assumed or stated in one or more of the premises
Begging the question
The fallacy of presenting two scenarios- one desirable one undesirable- as if they are the only alternatives available
False dichotomy or false dilemma
The term describes the weight of evidence or argument required by one side in a debate or disagreement
Burden of proof
The whole collection of individuals under a study
Target group( target population)
The observed members of a target group in an observational study
A sample that is selected randomly from a target group in such a way as to ensure that the sample is representative
Random sample
A sample that resembles the target group in all relevant ways
Representative sample
A condition for the occurrence of an event without which the event cannot occur
Necessary condition
A condition for the occurrence of an event that guarantees that the event occurs
Sufficient conditions
The fallacy that states that since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X:
Post hoc fallacy
The fallacy wherein someone applies standards, principles, and or rules to towhees while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Double standards.
Special pleading
The tendency for individuals to seek out or favor information that supports their established beliefs or opinions, while correspondingly disregarding or avoiding information that does not support their belief structure
Confirmation bias
When someone maintains a hasty generalization by simply excluding a counterexample from that generalization
The no true Scotsman fallacy
The fallacy of dismissing an argument or complaint due to the existence of more important problems in the world, regardless of whether those problems bear relevance to the initial argument. If X is not as bad as Y therefore X is not a problem
The fallacy of relative privation
A form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing is inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible
Reduction to absurdity
Arguments of this type If P then QP/ Therefore, Q or P>Q, P- Q are referred to as
The way of affirmation (modus ponens)
The formal fallacy involves arriving at an affirmative conclusion from merely negative premises. Any valid forms of categorical syllogisms that assert a negative premise must have a negative conclusion
Illicit negative
Traditionally known as an “A maiore ad minus” argument. this class of arguments makes an assertion about a specific member of a class, based upon what holds true for the class more generally
Arguing from the general to the specific
What should happen to a margin of error a sample size increases
It should decrease
This type of casual explanation describes the general conditions under which a specific event occurred on
A physical cause explanation
This type of casual explanation describes classes of human actions as it relates to their psychological, sociological, economic, or historical conditions
Behavioral casual explanations
A casual explanation offered for further investigation or testing. This is a form of inference to the best explanation
A hypothesis
An interface between a cause and effect- an apparatus- that has the property of making the effect happen, given the cause. This separates mere correlation from causation
A casual explanation
According to Harry Frankfurt, what is is that bullshit essentially misinterprets?
The intentions of the speaker
A diversionary tactic whereby someone shifts criticism from themselves or their allies onto others by bringing up the shortcomings of the interlocutor or their allies by saying “what about…” followed by some unrelated event, action, or position
Whataboutism
A form of persistent manipulation that causes the victim to doubt her or himself, and ultimately lose their own sense of perception, identity and self worth
Gaslighting
A theory of truth which states that the truth of any proposition consists in its coherence with some specified set of propositions
A coherence theory of truth
A theory of truth which that’s that truth consists in a relation to reality, I.e., that truth is a relational property involving a characteristics relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified):
A correspondence theory of truth
In their book, manufacturing consent, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky maintain that in a democracy, physical force is typically removed as a means of coercion. Therefore, control in a society must rely upon on what
Within a sentence, the properties of being “right”, “wrong”, or “indifferent” are said to reflect the statements
Truth function
Critical Thinking Midterm (4 decks)
- Music 1920s
- Music 1930s
- Final Exam Critical Thinking
- Corporate Training
- Teachers & Schools
- Android App
- Help Center
- Law Education
- All Subjects A-Z
- All Certified Classes
- Earn Money!
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like define : statements given in form of another statement, what are the premise indicators, define : statements that premises are intended to support and more.
Studying D265 Critical Thinking: Reason and Evidence at Western Governors University? On Studocu you will find 36 lecture notes, 27 practice materials, 13.
_______ Is the general term given to a wide range f cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze and evaluate arguments and truth claims, to discover and overcome personal preconceptions and biases, to formulate and present convincing reasons in support of conclusions, and to make reasonable, intelligent...
Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like We base our actions and choices on our...?, What is reasoning a combination of?, What are the two different kinds of logic? and more.
Question 2. Critical thinking skills include all of the following except: Choose one answer. a. Understanding the logical connections between ideas. b. Inventing new concepts and possibilities. c. Identifying, constructing, and evaluating arguments. d.
Study Final Exam Critical Thinking flashcards from Paige Jarrell's CHAPARRAL HIGH SCHOOL class online, or in Brainscape's iPhone or Android app. Learn faster with spaced repetition.
Critical Thinking Final Study Guide In preparation for the final exam, it is recommended that you review the following concepts and terms (relevant review exercises from the book are in italics): • Identifying fallacies in formal and informal reasoning, and distinguishing legitimate from fallacious reasoning (chaps. 6 &
Critical thinking can also help us clarify our feelings and deal with them more effectively. Our emotions often need the guidance of reason. Likewise, our reasoning needs our emotions.
Studying PHIL 1440 Critical Thinking at University of Colorado Boulder? On Studocu you will find 37 lecture notes, summaries, assignments, practice materials and
This document contains the answers to the odd-numbered review and critical-thinking exercises from the end of each chapter in OpenStax Psychology. The critical thinking questions are open-ended, and the provided answers offer sample information or representative information.