critical thinking chapter 3 quiz

• Register or Log In
• 0) { document.location='/search/'+document.getElementById('quicksearch').value.trim().toLowerCase(); }">

Chapter 3 Self-Quiz

Quiz content, are you sure, select your country.

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

(10 reviews)

Matthew Van Cleave, Lansing Community College

Copyright Year: 2016

Publisher: Matthew J. Van Cleave

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by "yusef" Alexander Hayes, Professor, North Shore Community College on 6/9/21

Formal and informal reasoning, argument structure, and fallacies are covered comprehensively, meeting the author's goal of both depth and succinctness. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

Formal and informal reasoning, argument structure, and fallacies are covered comprehensively, meeting the author's goal of both depth and succinctness.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The book is accurate.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

While many modern examples are used, and they are helpful, they are not necessarily needed. The usefulness of logical principles and skills have proved themselves, and this text presents them clearly with many examples.

Clarity rating: 5

It is obvious that the author cares about their subject, audience, and students. The text is comprehensible and interesting.

Consistency rating: 5

The format is easy to understand and is consistent in framing.

Modularity rating: 5

This text would be easy to adapt.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The organization is excellent, my one suggestion would be a concluding chapter.

Interface rating: 5

I accessed the PDF version and it would be easy to work with.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

The writing is excellent.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

This is not an offensive text.

Reviewed by Susan Rottmann, Part-time Lecturer, University of Southern Maine on 3/2/21

I reviewed this book for a course titled "Creative and Critical Inquiry into Modern Life." It won't meet all my needs for that course, but I haven't yet found a book that would. I wanted to review this one because it states in the preface that it... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

I reviewed this book for a course titled "Creative and Critical Inquiry into Modern Life." It won't meet all my needs for that course, but I haven't yet found a book that would. I wanted to review this one because it states in the preface that it fits better for a general critical thinking course than for a true logic course. I'm not sure that I'd agree. I have been using Browne and Keeley's "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking," and I think that book is a better introduction to critical thinking for non-philosophy majors. However, the latter is not open source so I will figure out how to get by without it in the future. Overall, the book seems comprehensive if the subject is logic. The index is on the short-side, but fine. However, one issue for me is that there are no page numbers on the table of contents, which is pretty annoying if you want to locate particular sections.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

I didn't find any errors. In general the book uses great examples. However, they are very much based in the American context, not for an international student audience. Some effort to broaden the chosen examples would make the book more widely applicable.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

I think the book will remain relevant because of the nature of the material that it addresses, however there will be a need to modify the examples in future editions and as the social and political context changes.

Clarity rating: 3

The text is lucid, but I think it would be difficult for introductory-level students who are not philosophy majors. For example, in Browne and Keeley's "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking," the sub-headings are very accessible, such as "Experts cannot rescue us, despite what they say" or "wishful thinking: perhaps the biggest single speed bump on the road to critical thinking." By contrast, Van Cleave's "Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking" has more subheadings like this: "Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form" or "Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives." If students are prepared very well for the subject, it would work fine, but for students who are newly being introduced to critical thinking, it is rather technical.

It seems to be very consistent in terms of its terminology and framework.

Modularity rating: 4

The book is divided into 4 chapters, each having many sub-chapters. In that sense, it is readily divisible and modular. However, as noted above, there are no page numbers on the table of contents, which would make assigning certain parts rather frustrating. Also, I'm not sure why the book is only four chapter and has so many subheadings (for instance 17 in Chapter 2) and a length of 242 pages. Wouldn't it make more sense to break up the book into shorter chapters? I think this would make it easier to read and to assign in specific blocks to students.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The organization of the book is fine overall, although I think adding page numbers to the table of contents and breaking it up into more separate chapters would help it to be more easily navigable.

Interface rating: 4

The book is very simply presented. In my opinion it is actually too simple. There are few boxes or diagrams that highlight and explain important points.

The text seems fine grammatically. I didn't notice any errors.

The book is written with an American audience in mind, but I did not notice culturally insensitive or offensive parts.

Overall, this book is not for my course, but I think it could work well in a philosophy course.

Reviewed by Daniel Lee, Assistant Professor of Economics and Leadership, Sweet Briar College on 11/11/19

This textbook is not particularly comprehensive (4 chapters long), but I view that as a benefit. In fact, I recommend it for use outside of traditional logic classes, but rather interdisciplinary classes that evaluate argument read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

This textbook is not particularly comprehensive (4 chapters long), but I view that as a benefit. In fact, I recommend it for use outside of traditional logic classes, but rather interdisciplinary classes that evaluate argument

To the best of my ability, I regard this content as accurate, error-free, and unbiased

The book is broadly relevant and up-to-date, with a few stray temporal references (sydney olympics, particular presidencies). I don't view these time-dated examples as problematic as the logical underpinnings are still there and easily assessed

Clarity rating: 4

My only pushback on clarity is I didn't find the distinction between argument and explanation particularly helpful/useful/easy to follow. However, this experience may have been unique to my class.

To the best of my ability, I regard this content as internally consistent

I found this text quite modular, and was easily able to integrate other texts into my lessons and disregard certain chapters or sub-sections

The book had a logical and consistent structure, but to the extent that there are only 4 chapters, there isn't much scope for alternative approaches here

No problems with the book's interface

The text is grammatically sound

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

Perhaps the text could have been more universal in its approach. While I didn't find the book insensitive per-se, logic can be tricky here because the point is to evaluate meaningful (non-trivial) arguments, but any argument with that sense of gravity can also be traumatic to students (abortion, death penalty, etc)

No additional comments

Reviewed by Lisa N. Thomas-Smith, Graduate Part-time Instructor, CU Boulder on 7/1/19

The text covers all the relevant technical aspects of introductory logic and critical thinking, and covers them well. A separate glossary would be quite helpful to students. However, the terms are clearly and thoroughly explained within the text,... read more

The text covers all the relevant technical aspects of introductory logic and critical thinking, and covers them well. A separate glossary would be quite helpful to students. However, the terms are clearly and thoroughly explained within the text, and the index is very thorough.

The content is excellent. The text is thorough and accurate with no errors that I could discern. The terminology and exercises cover the material nicely and without bias.

The text should easily stand the test of time. The exercises are excellent and would be very helpful for students to internalize correct critical thinking practices. Because of the logical arrangement of the text and the many sub-sections, additional material should be very easy to add.

The text is extremely clearly and simply written. I anticipate that a diligent student could learn all of the material in the text with little additional instruction. The examples are relevant and easy to follow.

The text did not confuse terms or use inconsistent terminology, which is very important in a logic text. The discipline often uses multiple terms for the same concept, but this text avoids that trap nicely.

The text is fairly easily divisible. Since there are only four chapters, those chapters include large blocks of information. However, the chapters themselves are very well delineated and could be easily broken up so that parts could be left out or covered in a different order from the text.

The flow of the text is excellent. All of the information is handled solidly in an order that allows the student to build on the information previously covered.

The PDF Table of Contents does not include links or page numbers which would be very helpful for navigation. Other than that, the text was very easy to navigate. All the images, charts, and graphs were very clear

I found no grammatical errors in the text.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

The text including examples and exercises did not seem to be offensive or insensitive in any specific way. However, the examples included references to black and white people, but few others. Also, the text is very American specific with many examples from and for an American audience. More diversity, especially in the examples, would be appropriate and appreciated.

Reviewed by Leslie Aarons, Associate Professor of Philosophy, CUNY LaGuardia Community College on 5/16/19

This is an excellent introductory (first-year) Logic and Critical Thinking textbook. The book covers the important elementary information, clearly discussing such things as the purpose and basic structure of an argument; the difference between an... read more

This is an excellent introductory (first-year) Logic and Critical Thinking textbook. The book covers the important elementary information, clearly discussing such things as the purpose and basic structure of an argument; the difference between an argument and an explanation; validity; soundness; and the distinctions between an inductive and a deductive argument in accessible terms in the first chapter. It also does a good job introducing and discussing informal fallacies (Chapter 4). The incorporation of opportunities to evaluate real-world arguments is also very effective. Chapter 2 also covers a number of formal methods of evaluating arguments, such as Venn Diagrams and Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives, but to my mind, it is much more thorough in its treatment of Informal Logic and Critical Thinking skills, than it is of formal logic. I also appreciated that Van Cleave’s book includes exercises with answers and an index, but there is no glossary; which I personally do not find detracts from the book's comprehensiveness.

Overall, Van Cleave's book is error-free and unbiased. The language used is accessible and engaging. There were no glaring inaccuracies that I was able to detect.

Van Cleave's Textbook uses relevant, contemporary content that will stand the test of time, at least for the next few years. Although some examples use certain subjects like former President Obama, it does so in a useful manner that inspires the use of critical thinking skills. There are an abundance of examples that inspire students to look at issues from many different political viewpoints, challenging students to practice evaluating arguments, and identifying fallacies. Many of these exercises encourage students to critique issues, and recognize their own inherent reader-biases and challenge their own beliefs--hallmarks of critical thinking.

As mentioned previously, the author has an accessible style that makes the content relatively easy to read and engaging. He also does a suitable job explaining jargon/technical language that is introduced in the textbook.

Van Cleave uses terminology consistently and the chapters flow well. The textbook orients the reader by offering effective introductions to new material, step-by-step explanations of the material, as well as offering clear summaries of each lesson.

This textbook's modularity is really quite good. Its language and structure are not overly convoluted or too-lengthy, making it convenient for individual instructors to adapt the materials to suit their methodological preferences.

The topics in the textbook are presented in a logical and clear fashion. The structure of the chapters are such that it is not necessary to have to follow the chapters in their sequential order, and coverage of material can be adapted to individual instructor's preferences.

The textbook is free of any problematic interface issues. Topics, sections and specific content are accessible and easy to navigate. Overall it is user-friendly.

I did not find any significant grammatical issues with the textbook.

The textbook is not culturally insensitive, making use of a diversity of inclusive examples. Materials are especially effective for first-year critical thinking/logic students.

I intend to adopt Van Cleave's textbook for a Critical Thinking class I am teaching at the Community College level. I believe that it will help me facilitate student-learning, and will be a good resource to build additional classroom activities from the materials it provides.

Reviewed by Jennie Harrop, Chair, Department of Professional Studies, George Fox University on 3/27/18

While the book is admirably comprehensive, its extensive details within a few short chapters may feel overwhelming to students. The author tackles an impressive breadth of concepts in Chapter 1, 2, 3, and 4, which leads to 50-plus-page chapters... read more

While the book is admirably comprehensive, its extensive details within a few short chapters may feel overwhelming to students. The author tackles an impressive breadth of concepts in Chapter 1, 2, 3, and 4, which leads to 50-plus-page chapters that are dense with statistical analyses and critical vocabulary. These topics are likely better broached in manageable snippets rather than hefty single chapters.

The ideas addressed in Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking are accurate but at times notably political. While politics are effectively used to exemplify key concepts, some students may be distracted by distinct political leanings.

The terms and definitions included are relevant, but the examples are specific to the current political, cultural, and social climates, which could make the materials seem dated in a few years without intentional and consistent updates.

While the reasoning is accurate, the author tends to complicate rather than simplify -- perhaps in an effort to cover a spectrum of related concepts. Beginning readers are likely to be overwhelmed and under-encouraged by his approach.

Consistency rating: 3

The four chapters are somewhat consistent in their play of definition, explanation, and example, but the structure of each chapter varies according to the concepts covered. In the third chapter, for example, key ideas are divided into sub-topics numbering from 3.1 to 3.10. In the fourth chapter, the sub-divisions are further divided into sub-sections numbered 4.1.1-4.1.5, 4.2.1-4.2.2, and 4.3.1 to 4.3.6. Readers who are working quickly to master new concepts may find themselves mired in similarly numbered subheadings, longing for a grounded concepts on which to hinge other key principles.

Modularity rating: 3

The book's four chapters make it mostly self-referential. The author would do well to beak this text down into additional subsections, easing readers' accessibility.

The content of the book flows logically and well, but the information needs to be better sub-divided within each larger chapter, easing the student experience.

The book's interface is effective, allowing readers to move from one section to the next with a single click. Additional sub-sections would ease this interplay even further.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

Some minor errors throughout.

For the most part, the book is culturally neutral, avoiding direct cultural references in an effort to remain relevant.

Reviewed by Yoichi Ishida, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Ohio University on 2/1/18

This textbook covers enough topics for a first-year course on logic and critical thinking. Chapter 1 covers the basics as in any standard textbook in this area. Chapter 2 covers propositional logic and categorical logic. In propositional logic,... read more

This textbook covers enough topics for a first-year course on logic and critical thinking. Chapter 1 covers the basics as in any standard textbook in this area. Chapter 2 covers propositional logic and categorical logic. In propositional logic, this textbook does not cover suppositional arguments, such as conditional proof and reductio ad absurdum. But other standard argument forms are covered. Chapter 3 covers inductive logic, and here this textbook introduces probability and its relationship with cognitive biases, which are rarely discussed in other textbooks. Chapter 4 introduces common informal fallacies. The answers to all the exercises are given at the end. However, the last set of exercises is in Chapter 3, Section 5. There are no exercises in the rest of the chapter. Chapter 4 has no exercises either. There is index, but no glossary.

The textbook is accurate.

The content of this textbook will not become obsolete soon.

The textbook is written clearly.

The textbook is internally consistent.

The textbook is fairly modular. For example, Chapter 3, together with a few sections from Chapter 1, can be used as a short introduction to inductive logic.

The textbook is well-organized.

There are no interface issues.

I did not find any grammatical errors.

This textbook is relevant to a first semester logic or critical thinking course.

Reviewed by Payal Doctor, Associate Professro, LaGuardia Community College on 2/1/18

This text is a beginner textbook for arguments and propositional logic. It covers the basics of identifying arguments, building arguments, and using basic logic to construct propositions and arguments. It is quite comprehensive for a beginner... read more

This text is a beginner textbook for arguments and propositional logic. It covers the basics of identifying arguments, building arguments, and using basic logic to construct propositions and arguments. It is quite comprehensive for a beginner book, but seems to be a good text for a course that needs a foundation for arguments. There are exercises on creating truth tables and proofs, so it could work as a logic primer in short sessions or with the addition of other course content.

The books is accurate in the information it presents. It does not contain errors and is unbiased. It covers the essential vocabulary clearly and givens ample examples and exercises to ensure the student understands the concepts

The content of the book is up to date and can be easily updated. Some examples are very current for analyzing the argument structure in a speech, but for this sort of text understandable examples are important and the author uses good examples.

The book is clear and easy to read. In particular, this is a good text for community college students who often have difficulty with reading comprehension. The language is straightforward and concepts are well explained.

The book is consistent in terminology, formatting, and examples. It flows well from one topic to the next, but it is also possible to jump around the text without loosing the voice of the text.

The books is broken down into sub units that make it easy to assign short blocks of content at a time. Later in the text, it does refer to a few concepts that appear early in that text, but these are all basic concepts that must be used to create a clear and understandable text. No sections are too long and each section stays on topic and relates the topic to those that have come before when necessary.

The flow of the text is logical and clear. It begins with the basic building blocks of arguments, and practice identifying more and more complex arguments is offered. Each chapter builds up from the previous chapter in introducing propositional logic, truth tables, and logical arguments. A select number of fallacies are presented at the end of the text, but these are related to topics that were presented before, so it makes sense to have these last.

The text is free if interface issues. I used the PDF and it worked fine on various devices without loosing formatting.

1. The book contains no grammatical errors.

The text is culturally sensitive, but examples used are a bit odd and may be objectionable to some students. For instance, President Obama's speech on Syria is used to evaluate an extended argument. This is an excellent example and it is explained well, but some who disagree with Obama's policies may have trouble moving beyond their own politics. However, other examples look at issues from all political viewpoints and ask students to evaluate the argument, fallacy, etc. and work towards looking past their own beliefs. Overall this book does use a variety of examples that most students can understand and evaluate.

My favorite part of this book is that it seems to be written for community college students. My students have trouble understanding readings in the New York Times, so it is nice to see a logic and critical thinking text use real language that students can understand and follow without the constant need of a dictionary.

Reviewed by Rebecca Owen, Adjunct Professor, Writing, Chemeketa Community College on 6/20/17

This textbook is quite thorough--there are conversational explanations of argument structure and logic. I think students will be happy with the conversational style this author employs. Also, there are many examples and exercises using current... read more

This textbook is quite thorough--there are conversational explanations of argument structure and logic. I think students will be happy with the conversational style this author employs. Also, there are many examples and exercises using current events, funny scenarios, or other interesting ways to evaluate argument structure and validity. The third section, which deals with logical fallacies, is very clear and comprehensive. My only critique of the material included in the book is that the middle section may be a bit dense and math-oriented for learners who appreciate the more informal, informative style of the first and third section. Also, the book ends rather abruptly--it moves from a description of a logical fallacy to the answers for the exercises earlier in the text.

The content is very reader-friendly, and the author writes with authority and clarity throughout the text. There are a few surface-level typos (Starbuck's instead of Starbucks, etc.). None of these small errors detract from the quality of the content, though.

One thing I really liked about this text was the author's wide variety of examples. To demonstrate different facets of logic, he used examples from current media, movies, literature, and many other concepts that students would recognize from their daily lives. The exercises in this text also included these types of pop-culture references, and I think students will enjoy the familiarity--as well as being able to see the logical structures behind these types of references. I don't think the text will need to be updated to reflect new instances and occurrences; the author did a fine job at picking examples that are relatively timeless. As far as the subject matter itself, I don't think it will become obsolete any time soon.

The author writes in a very conversational, easy-to-read manner. The examples used are quite helpful. The third section on logical fallacies is quite easy to read, follow, and understand. A student in an argument writing class could benefit from this section of the book. The middle section is less clear, though. A student learning about the basics of logic might have a hard time digesting all of the information contained in chapter two. This material might be better in two separate chapters. I think the author loses the balance of a conversational, helpful tone and focuses too heavily on equations.

Consistency rating: 4

Terminology in this book is quite consistent--the key words are highlighted in bold. Chapters 1 and 3 follow a similar organizational pattern, but chapter 2 is where the material becomes more dense and equation-heavy. I also would have liked a closing passage--something to indicate to the reader that we've reached the end of the chapter as well as the book.

I liked the overall structure of this book. If I'm teaching an argumentative writing class, I could easily point the students to the chapters where they can identify and practice identifying fallacies, for instance. The opening chapter is clear in defining the necessary terms, and it gives the students an understanding of the toolbox available to them in assessing and evaluating arguments. Even though I found the middle section to be dense, smaller portions could be assigned.

The author does a fine job connecting each defined term to the next. He provides examples of how each defined term works in a sentence or in an argument, and then he provides practice activities for students to try. The answers for each question are listed in the final pages of the book. The middle section feels like the heaviest part of the whole book--it would take the longest time for a student to digest if assigned the whole chapter. Even though this middle section is a bit heavy, it does fit the overall structure and flow of the book. New material builds on previous chapters and sub-chapters. It ends abruptly--I didn't realize that it had ended, and all of a sudden I found myself in the answer section for those earlier exercises.

The simple layout is quite helpful! There is nothing distracting, image-wise, in this text. The table of contents is clearly arranged, and each topic is easy to find.

Tiny edits could be made (Starbuck's/Starbucks, for one). Otherwise, it is free of distracting grammatical errors.

This text is quite culturally relevant. For instance, there is one example that mentions the rumors of Barack Obama's birthplace as somewhere other than the United States. This example is used to explain how to analyze an argument for validity. The more "sensational" examples (like the Obama one above) are helpful in showing argument structure, and they can also help students see how rumors like this might gain traction--as well as help to show students how to debunk them with their newfound understanding of argument and logic.

The writing style is excellent for the subject matter, especially in the third section explaining logical fallacies. Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this text!

Reviewed by Laurel Panser, Instructor, Riverland Community College on 6/20/17

This is a review of Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, an open source book version 1.4 by Matthew Van Cleave. The comparison book used was Patrick J. Hurley’s A Concise Introduction to Logic 12th Edition published by Cengage as well as... read more

This is a review of Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, an open source book version 1.4 by Matthew Van Cleave. The comparison book used was Patrick J. Hurley’s A Concise Introduction to Logic 12th Edition published by Cengage as well as the 13th edition with the same title. Lori Watson is the second author on the 13th edition.

Competing with Hurley is difficult with respect to comprehensiveness. For example, Van Cleave’s book is comprehensive to the extent that it probably covers at least two-thirds or more of what is dealt with in most introductory, one-semester logic courses. Van Cleave’s chapter 1 provides an overview of argumentation including discerning non-arguments from arguments, premises versus conclusions, deductive from inductive arguments, validity, soundness and more. Much of Van Cleave’s chapter 1 parallel’s Hurley’s chapter 1. Hurley’s chapter 3 regarding informal fallacies is comprehensive while Van Cleave’s chapter 4 on this topic is less extensive. Categorical propositions are a topic in Van Cleave’s chapter 2; Hurley’s chapters 4 and 5 provide more instruction on this, however. Propositional logic is another topic in Van Cleave’s chapter 2; Hurley’s chapters 6 and 7 provide more information on this, though. Van Cleave did discuss messy issues of language meaning briefly in his chapter 1; that is the topic of Hurley’s chapter 2.

Van Cleave’s book includes exercises with answers and an index. A glossary was not included.

Reviews of open source textbooks typically include criteria besides comprehensiveness. These include comments on accuracy of the information, whether the book will become obsolete soon, jargon-free clarity to the extent that is possible, organization, navigation ease, freedom from grammar errors and cultural relevance; Van Cleave’s book is fine in all of these areas. Further criteria for open source books includes modularity and consistency of terminology. Modularity is defined as including blocks of learning material that are easy to assign to students. Hurley’s book has a greater degree of modularity than Van Cleave’s textbook. The prose Van Cleave used is consistent.

Van Cleave’s book will not become obsolete soon.

Van Cleave’s book has accessible prose.

Van Cleave used terminology consistently.

Van Cleave’s book has a reasonable degree of modularity.

Van Cleave’s book is organized. The structure and flow of his book is fine.

Problems with navigation are not present.

Grammar problems were not present.

Van Cleave’s book is culturally relevant.

Van Cleave’s book is appropriate for some first semester logic courses.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments

• 1.1 What is an argument?
• 1.2 Identifying arguments
• 1.3 Arguments vs. explanations
• 1.4 More complex argument structures
• 1.5 Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form
• 1.6 Validity
• 1.7 Soundness
• 1.8 Deductive vs. inductive arguments
• 1.9 Arguments with missing premises
• 1.10 Assuring, guarding, and discounting
• 1.11 Evaluative language
• 1.12 Evaluating a real-life argument

Chapter 2: Formal methods of evaluating arguments

• 2.1 What is a formal method of evaluation and why do we need them?
• 2.2 Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives
• 2.3 Negation and disjunction
• 2.4 Using parentheses to translate complex sentences
• 2.5 “Not both” and “neither nor”
• 2.6 The truth table test of validity
• 2.7 Conditionals
• 2.8 “Unless”
• 2.9 Material equivalence
• 2.10 Tautologies, contradictions, and contingent statements
• 2.11 Proofs and the 8 valid forms of inference
• 2.12 How to construct proofs
• 2.13 Short review of propositional logic
• 2.14 Categorical logic
• 2.15 The Venn test of validity for immediate categorical inferences
• 2.16 Universal statements and existential commitment
• 2.17 Venn validity for categorical syllogisms

Chapter 3: Evaluating inductive arguments and probabilistic and statistical fallacies

• 3.1 Inductive arguments and statistical generalizations
• 3.2 Inference to the best explanation and the seven explanatory virtues
• 3.3 Analogical arguments
• 3.4 Causal arguments
• 3.5 Probability
• 3.6 The conjunction fallacy
• 3.7 The base rate fallacy
• 3.8 The small numbers fallacy
• 3.9 Regression to the mean fallacy
• 3.10 Gambler's fallacy

Chapter 4: Informal fallacies

• 4.1 Formal vs. informal fallacies
• 4.1.1 Composition fallacy
• 4.1.2 Division fallacy
• 4.1.3 Begging the question fallacy
• 4.1.4 False dichotomy
• 4.1.5 Equivocation
• 4.2 Slippery slope fallacies
• 4.2.1 Conceptual slippery slope
• 4.2.2 Causal slippery slope
• 4.3 Fallacies of relevance
• 4.3.1 Ad hominem
• 4.3.2 Straw man
• 4.3.3 Tu quoque
• 4.3.4 Genetic
• 4.3.5 Appeal to consequences
• 4.3.6 Appeal to authority

Answers to exercises Glossary/Index

Ancillary Material

About the book.

This is an introductory textbook in logic and critical thinking. The goal of the textbook is to provide the reader with a set of tools and skills that will enable them to identify and evaluate arguments. The book is intended for an introductory course that covers both formal and informal logic. As such, it is not a formal logic textbook, but is closer to what one would find marketed as a “critical thinking textbook.”

About the Contributors

Matthew Van Cleave ,   PhD, Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, 2007.  VAP at Concordia College (Moorhead), 2008-2012.  Assistant Professor at Lansing Community College, 2012-2016. Professor at Lansing Community College, 2016-

Contribute to this Page

Critical Thinking Questions

The theory of evolution by natural selection requires variability of a given trait. Why is variability necessary and where does it come from?

Cocaine has two effects on synaptic transmission: it impairs reuptake of dopamine and it causes more dopamine to be released into the synaptic cleft. Would cocaine be classified as an agonist or antagonist? Why?

Drugs such as lidocaine and novocaine act as Na + channel blockers. In other words, they prevent sodium from moving across the neuronal membrane. Why would this particular effect make these drugs such effective local anesthetics?

What are the implications of compromised immune function as a result of exposure to chronic stress?

Examine Figure 3.14 , illustrating the effects of sympathetic nervous system activation. How would all of these things play into the fight or flight response?

Before the advent of modern imaging techniques, scientists and clinicians relied on autopsies of people who suffered brain injury with resultant change in behavior to determine how different areas of the brain were affected. What are some of the limitations associated with this kind of approach?

Which of the techniques discussed would be viable options for you to determine how activity in the reticular formation is related to sleep and wakefulness? Why?

Hormone secretion is often regulated through a negative feedback mechanism, which means that once a hormone is secreted it will cause the hypothalamus and pituitary to shut down the production of signals necessary to secrete the hormone in the first place. Most oral contraceptives are made of small doses of estrogen and/or progesterone. Why would this be an effective means of contraception?

Chemical messengers are used in both the nervous system and the endocrine system. What properties do these two systems share? What properties are different? Which one would be faster? Which one would result in long-lasting changes?

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Psychology 2e
• Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/3-critical-thinking-questions

© Jan 6, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

3.E: Chapter Three (Exercises)

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 223821

How can I tell one from the other?

• The objection is that the inference itself is incomplete or weak or invalid or simply doesn’t make any sense.
• An objection to a hidden premise is actually an objection to an inference: you’re claiming that the inference rests on a weak hidden premise and so is an incomplete inference.
• The objection is that some particular claim is false or at least is likely or plausibly false.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\): Conjoint vs Independent Support

For each, determine whether the support offered by the premises is conjoint or independent. Deploy the negative test when you’re unsure.

A. Eating healthy food is important and Figs are super healthy, so we should eat more figs.

B. I have to have a steady income to support my family, I already have a stable job, and grad school would require me to quit my job, so I shouldn’t go to grad school.

C. All of the nurses have gone on the strike, the custodial staff is threatening the same, and the doctors are demanding better legal support. This hospital is in trouble right now.

D. He is ten years younger than you and no one should date anyone ten years younger, so you can’t date him!

E. An ergonomic desk can prevent permanent injury, is more comfortable to use, and is cost-effective, so can I please buy one for my office?

F. A robust economic recovery will require higher taxes on the wealthy, and we need to have a strong recovery to prevent melt downs in the near future, so we must raise taxes on the wealthy.

G. We’ve always been honest with each other and the honest thing to do right now is to tell you that that outfit is terrible, so I need to tell you the truth about that outfit.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{2}\): Terminology

Fill in the blank labels using one of each of the following key terms: (A) Sub-Conclusion, (B) Sub-Premise, (C) Main Premise, (D) A premise on level 4 of the argument map, (E) A premise on level 2 of the argument map, (F) Conjoint Premise, (G) Independent Premise.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{3}\): Simple Argument Maps

For each, create an argument map. Be sure to distinguish between conjoint and independent support.

A. (1) Eating healthy food is the most effective weight-loss strategy, since (2) the amount of calories one takes in while eating even small snacks takes a long time to burn off by exercising, and (3) almost no one can afford to spend hours and hours exercising throughout the day.

B. (1) We’ve been out here in the sun all day, and (2) being in the sun for too long is unhealthy, so (3) let’s go inside.

C. (1) He’s so popular. (2) Everyone wanted to be invited to his birthday party and (3) he had five people invite him to the dance.

D. (1) We should ban all guns. (2) Guns are especially effective killing machines for mass killings. Also, (3) children often have fatal accidents with guns. Furthermore, (4) guns don’t have a non-violent use.

E. (1) Having intercourse before 18 is wrong because, (2) you are not emotionally mature enough to deal with the awkwardness and intimacy of the situation, and (3) you are not mature enough to deal with the potential consequences of the situation (pregnancy or STIs).

F. (1) Treating others with respect is important, so (2) we should all respect each other, and (3) we should try to teach our children to respect others.

G. (1) Oreos aren’t healthy, since (2) Nabisco products generally aren’t healthy. Think about it: (3) Pringles aren’t healthy, (4) Pop Tarts aren’t healthy, and (5) neither are Chips Ahoy.

H. (1) People are starting not to like you. (2) Tina said she wasn’t your friend anymore, (3) Beto said he doesn’t like you, and (4) I certainly don’t want to be around you.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{4}\): More Complex Argument Maps

A. (1) I know that Sally went to the park with Billy because (2) Sally said she’d go with him if he asked, and (3) Billy likes Sally (so he wouldn’t ask her as a prank) and (4) Billy asked Sally to go to the park.

B. (1) Eating any meat is wrong because, (2) most meat is produced in factory farms, (3) animals in factory farms suffer greatly, and (4) even ‘free range’ and ‘organic’ meat causes animal suffering.

C. (1) We already have almost all of the technology needed to clone dinosaurs and (2) human beings tend to do whatever they find they can do. (3) So, killer dinosaurs will roam the Earth one day. And since this is true, we can expect two things: (4) an armed response leading to the loss of innocent life, and (5) movie producers trying to buy the rights to the story.

D. (1) Burning fossil fuels like petrol, coal, and natural gas contributes to global warming. (2) According to experts, the combustion reaction releases free molecules of CO 2 into the atmosphere, and (3) Scientists wouldn’t lie about this. Think about it: (4) there’s no profit incentive for scientists to lie about this, but (5) there is a profit motive for other people to deny that it is true.

E. The Republicans have argued repeatedly that (1) the Affordable Care Act is in a death spiral. Because, they say, (2) premiums are getting higher, and (3) as premiums get higher, the people will stop purchasing policies and (4) if the people stop purchasing policies, then the insurance companies will pull out of the exchanges, and (5) if that happens, then the whole system collapses.

F. (1) We need to protect the environment, since (2) biodiversity is necessary to protect future food sources and (3) biodiversity is sustainable only in a relatively healthy global environment. Furthermore, (4) We take great pleasure in the natural wonders that the Earth has to offer (5) [suppressed premise]

Exercise \(\PageIndex{5}\): Even More Complex Argument Maps

A. (1) We need to buy a new trampoline, since (2) our son almost hurt himself really badly when this one broke last week, and (3) I don’t want to risk it again. (4) Even if you’re able to fix it, there’s no guarantee that it will be as safe as a new one. Think about it: (5) older trampolines like ours don’t have a net around them, and (6) the net makes it less likely that a kid will bounce off onto the ground and hurt themselves. Finally, (7) older trampolines like ours don’t have good spring covers, and (8) without spring covers, the risk of pinching oneself or falling through the springs and breaking a limb are very high.

B. (1) Eating kale is sometimes unsatisfying, but the fact is that (2) Kale has countless health benefits. (3) It is rich in folate and (4) folate helps guard against bad epigenetic changes. (5) It has more minerals and vitamins than most meat sources and (6) vitamins and minerals got from whole food sources are better than those got from multivitamins and other supplements since (7) whole foods contain more bioavailable forms of vitamins and minerals.

C. (1) We’ve already been in Afghanistan for over a decade and (2) no other American war has lasted this long, so (3) Afghanistan is the longest running American war. (4) We’ve shown little sign of progress in the past few years, and (5) we’ve sunk countless dollars into Afghan infrastructure and security projects with little to show for it. Given all of this, (6) we should pull out of Afghanistan and (7) we should divest interest in the Afghan society. (8) Since we’ve already tried so hard to fix it, (9) we should let them try to solve their own problems!

D. (1) Epigenetics is the most important frontier in genetic research. (2) Countless traits and processes depend not on genetic changes, but on epigenetic changes, (3) epigenetic changes are easier to induce through therapies, chemicals, and other interventions in a clinical setting, and (4) we already know the basic rules of genetics, but are far behind in our understanding of epigenetics. Given all that, it follows that (5) we should shift the balance of funding in favor of epigenetic research and (6) we should fund more PhD’s in epigenetics as well.

E. (1) We should put more direct emphasis in school and college on thinking clearly and critically. (2) The most important skill in life is thinking well. I think this because (3) other important skills like decision making and communication rely centrally on thinking well, and (4) a good citizen, employee, and overall person is one who can think clearly and rationally. (5) Citizens must weigh complex values in voting on candidates and referenda, (6) employees must make decisions in the workplace based on complex policies and competing needs, and (7) people in general need to have habits of self-critical and careful thinking in order to live good lives.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{6}\): Hidden Assumptions

For each inference, identify the most direct hidden assumption.

A. Moby Dick is a whale. So Moby Dick is a mammal.

B. Giving students a fail grade will damage their self-confidence. Therefore, we should not fail students.

C. It should not be illegal for adults to smoke pot. After all, it does not harm anyone.

D. There is nothing wrong with texting during lectures. Other students do it all the time.

E. Traces of ammonia have been found in Mars' atmosphere. So there must be life on Mars.

F. I don't like people who spit on the sidewalk, so littering should be illegal.

G. No one even cares what you think, so what you think isn't important.

H. Americans believe in freedom, so any law that restricts our freedom should be abolished.

I. Trees are beautiful, so we should plant more of them.

J. Carbon emissions contribute to global warming, so we should tax them.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{7}\): Mapping Hidden Assumptions

For each inference, identify the hidden assumption and then create a map of the inference including the hidden assumption.

A. The truth is, (1) we can’t vote for the Republican candidate. (2) She doesn’t believe in global warming.

B. (1) Nobody has ever been there and come back, and (2) I have children, so (3) I’m not going.

C. (1) Freedom isn’t free. (2) So, someone has to pay the price for freedom. (3) The way people pay the price of freedom is by serving in the armed forces. (4) So we should institute a draft. [at least two hidden assumptions]

D. (1) Nobody has ever seen a dinosaur, so (3) dinosaurs don’t exist.

E. (1) We should reduce the penalty for drunken driving, as (2) a milder penalty would mean more convictions. (3) The only way to reduce the penalty is to elect more liberal judges and prosecutors, so (4) we should elect liberal judges and prosecutors.

F. (1) Never again should we bow to tyrants, because (2) tyranny has been the mark of rule throughout human history, (3) as has cruelty and abject want. It follows that (4) we must rebel against the Imperial rule of England.

G. (1) Only real marriages should be recognized by the state, so (2) polygamist marriages shouldn't be recognized by the state. (3) Any marriage not recognized by the state should be illegal. So (4) polygamist marriages should be illegal. (5) Another reason they should be illegal is that, polygamist marriages often result in abusive situations. [the hidden assumption is between 1 and 2]

H. (1) No one believes in Odin anymore, so (2) why should anyone believe in God? [this is a rhetorical question, which is a claim that is disguised as a question. The claim appears to be "no one should believe in God”]. (3) If no one should rationally believe in something, then we should actively fight against belief in it. It follows that (4) we should actively fight against belied in the existence of God. (5) A world without believers would be a better world to live in. [the hidden assumption is between 1 and 2]

I. (1) We can't let terrorists live here with us in Pakistan, so (2) we should expel all Christians from our country. (3) Christians also don't contribute to the economy and (4) could potentially be spies for the Americans. [Where's the most blatant hidden assumption? There are more than one, but one in particular is relatively clearly a missing assumption of the argument]

Exercise \(\PageIndex{8}\): Identifying Types of Objections

Identify which type of objection is illustrated: an objection to a premise or an objection to an inference (including pointing out that there’s a hidden premise and/or rejecting a hidden premise)?

A. I agree with your conclusion, but it doesn’t follow from your assumptions.

B. Interesting argument, but what I don’t understand is your claim that every case of tyranny is a case of injustice. That doesn’t seem quite right.

C. You claim that there isn’t a threat to the Amazon. On the contrary, there are countless threats, one of which is people claiming that there isn’t a threat to the Amazon!

D. So if I accept all of your assumptions, it doesn’t seem to me that I must accept your conclusion.

E. If I have it right, it seems to me that your inference rests on a hidden assumption that we ought to do whatever is in our national interest. That’s not clearly true. Think about cases of humanitarian aid that only very indirectly if at all are in our national interest.

F. I think I understand the general thrust of this argument, but one claim makes me uncomfortable. Your inference rests on the claim, as you stated it, that Great Britain is to blame for more historical atrocities than any other European nation. That’s not clearly right.

G. I don’t think this is a good argument. We won’t clearly advance well beyond where we are today in terms of computing power because of the physical limits of the hardware we have available.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{9}\): Mapping Ojections

Identify which kind of objection is illustrated and then map the objection along with the original argument.

A. Person A: (1) Edward Snowden released petabytes of classified data. (2) He should be convicted of treason.

Person B: Wait a minute! (3) We shouldn’t just convict anyone who releases that much data of treason!

Person A: (4) If we don’t, then we’ll be opening the door to more dangerous leaks.

Person B: (5) Actually, come to think of it, I don’t think he did release petabytes. I think it was only Terabytes.

B. The Republicans have argued repeatedly that (1) the Affordable Care Act is in a death spiral. Because, they say, (2) premiums are getting higher, and (3) as premiums get higher, the people will stop purchasing policies and (4) if the people stop purchasing policies, then the insurance companies will pull out of the exchanges, and (5) if that happens, then the whole system collapses. But their conclusion doesn't follow, since (6) people need health insurance and won't stop purchasing it if prices continue to rise incrementally.

C. Person A: (1) College isn't designed around the goal of producing good plumbers and electricians and welders. (2) Furthermore, college is expensive and (3) college is time-consuming. So (4) we shouldn't expect everyone to go to college.

Person B: I understand your inference, but (5) college does make one a better plumber, electrician, and welder because it gives you a host of intellectual resources to bring to bear on solving the many unforeseen problems that arise on jobs like that.

Person C: I actually take issue with the inference here from your first claim to your conclusion, since (6) college isn't about job training, but is instead about creating a well-informed citizenry that can make rational and informed decisions at the voting booth.

D. Obama argued that (1) we should pass the ACA, claiming that (2) there is an epidemic of chronically-ill citizens without health insurance due to their pre-existing conditions and that (3) many citizens simply can’t afford health insurance.

But (4) the ACA won’t provide health insurance to a large group of relatively poor Americans.

E. Her argument was as follows: “(1) No one wants to be put in the position where they are faced with a deadly intruder without the proper means to protect theirself and their family. (2) Gun laws make it probable that someone will end up in that situation. (3) Therefore, we can’t enact gun control legislation.”

But that argument isn’t convincing. (4) Even if we accept the premises, we need not accept the conclusion. After all, there are reasons to pass gun control that must be addressed.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{10}\): Hidden Assumptions and Objections

Identify the hidden assumptions in the first argument and then map both the argument and the objections. Remember that objections to hidden assumptions are objections to inferences and so they should be mapped as such.

A. Frank: (1) We'll never make it to the party on time, so (2) let's just turn around and head home. (3) Samir and Imani live miles away and (4) we can't go very fast in this traffic.

Margaret: That's ridiculous, we'll absolutely make it on time. First, (5) we have 30 minutes to get there and also (6) we could be 15 minutes late and still be "on time" since it's a party.

B. Tamil: (1) We need to protect the environment, since (2) biodiversity is necessary to protect future food sources and (3) biodiversity is sustainable only in a relatively healthy global environment. Furthermore, (4) we take great pleasure in the natural wonders that the Earth has to offer (5) [suppressed premise]

Jamal: (6) I agree with your conclusion, but even if we accept that biodiversity is necessary and that protecting the environment is necessary for protecting biodiversity, we need not accept your conclusion.

C. (1) Counting Crows wrote and performed Mrs. Robinson, so (2) They’re the best band ever.

Ummm... (3) they wrote and performed “Mr. Jones”, not Mrs. Robinson. And either way (4) neither song would make them the best band ever.

D. He said “(1) I need some space, so (2) we need to break up.” But (3) he doesn’t need space. And either way, (4) needing space isn’t a good enough reason to break up with someone.

E. She said “(1) Potato chips are high in saturated fat and salt, and so (2) they should be consumed very sparingly.” But that’s a bad inference since (3) dietary research is overturning the idea that saturated fat is bad for humans and (4) humans need salt to maintain proper blood volume and electrolyte concentrations.

F. Pablo: (1) We shouldn’t eat even fake animal meat since (2) we wouldn’t think it’s okay to eat fake human meat. Afterall, (3) eating fake human meat would be tacitly affirming that cannibalism is morally acceptable. Marisela: I disagree, (4) there’s a faulty hidden premise there: that eating fake animal meat is analogous to eating fake human meat. Furthermore, (5) the other inference for the claim that eating fake human Meat is wrong has a hidden assumption as well and I’m not so sure it’s correct.

• Find Flashcards
• Why It Works
• Tutors & resellers
• Content partnerships
• Teachers & professors
• Employee training

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 flashcards, tags: critical thinking , humanities & social studies , philosophy, top critical thinking flashcards ranked by quality.

CRITICAL THINKING

By: emma trinker.

SAT Critical Thinking Class

By: pamela gaskill.

• Critical Thinking

By: poda poda

By: cesar a. contla.

Critical thinking

By: kimberly brown, by: isabel lemen, by: claudia parrott, by: nathan copeland, by: manesh nguyen.

critical thinking

By: julia bussmann.

Critical Thinking Midterm

By: paige jarrell, by: pine tree.

Critical Legal Thinking

By: olivia pinto.

By: Feliks Jürisson

SSH 105- Critical Thinking

By: yaseen khan.

Critical Thinking WSHS

By: leeann stout, by: manleen pattar.

RLST: Critical Thinking

By: brandy last name, by: marie opara.

STEM Critical Thinking

By: laasya potuluri.

A LEVEL - Critical Thinking

By: joysa s., by: marina yeroozedek, by: josef hansi, by: ross arnold.

nursing process/critical thinking

By: pamela pence.

Critical Thinking (PHIL252)

By: myroslav p.

Dr. Dykmans Critical Thinking in psychology, psych 110

By: kayla naude, by: amin shakourloo.

Critical Thinking & Logic C168

By: roxanne pettiford.

By: susie Kallan

Knowledge genome.

• Humanities & Social Studies
• Medical & Nursing
• Health & Fitness
• Business & Finance
• Technology & Engineering
• Food & Beverage
• Anthropology
• Citizenship
• Communications
• Criminal Justice
• Political Science
• Religion and Bible
• Early Childhood Education
• Social Studies
• Social Work
• Intro Philosophy
• Corporate Training
• Teachers & Schools
• Android App
• Help Center
• Law Education
• All Subjects A-Z
• All Certified Classes
• Earn Money!

20 Chapter 3. Critical Thinking Questions

• Before the advent of modern imaging techniques, scientists and clinicians relied on autopsies of people who suffered brain injury with resultant change in behavior to determine how different areas of the brain were affected. What are some of the limitations associated with this traditional kind of approach?
• Chemical messengers are used in both the nervous system and the endocrine system. What properties do these two systems share? What properties are different? Which one would be faster? Which one would result in long-lasting changes?
• Hormone secretion is often regulated through a negative feedback mechanism, which means that once a hormone is secreted it will cause the hypothalamus and pituitary to shut down the production of signals necessary to secrete the hormone in the first place. Most oral contraceptives are made of small doses of estrogen and/or progesterone. Why would this be an effective means of contraception?
• Biopsychology often relies on studying animal models to gain insights into human behavior. What are the ethical considerations involved in conducting research on animals, and how do you personally navigate the balance between scientific advancement and animal welfare?
• The study of biopsychology often involves complex research methods, such as brain imaging techniques and genetic studies. What are the potential limitations and biases that can arise in biopsychological research, and how can you be a discerning consumer of scientific information?

Introduction to Psychology (A critical approach) Copyright © 2021 by Rose M. Spielman; Kathryn Dumper; William Jenkins; Arlene Lacombe; Marilyn Lovett; and Marion Perlmutter is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Identify the fallacy of relevance committed by the following arguments.