logic and critical thinking chapter 2 in amharic

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

First time to EOPCW?

• +251921035701
• [email protected]
• Opening: 12:00am - 12:00am

Logic and Critical Thinking (I Year I Semester) Course OutLine

• Logic and Critical Thinking (I Year I Semester)
• Course OutLine

Course Descrpiton

Course name:logic and critical thinking (i year i semester) by mr. mitku assefa ; course code: loct 1011.

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING MODULE COURSE

logic and critical thinking chapter 2 in amharic

• FRESHMAN EXAMS
• __First Geography
• __Additional Geography
• __Final Geography
• _Psychology
• __First Psychology
• __Final Exam 1
• __Fina Exam 2
• _Logic and Critical
• __Logic unit 1-4
• __Fallacy part
• __Logic Final Exam
• _Emerging Technology
• __First Exam
• __Final Exam
• _Anthropology
• __Microbiology
• Website Design(Blogger)
• __Start Blogger
• __Add Custom Cursor
• __Steps to Write Questions
• _Saayikoloojii
• __Durbummaan maali?
• __Dubartoonni dhiira irraa maal jibbu
• __Digiriin Yoom Cittuu Waraqaa...
• _Kana Beektuu?
• __Iskolarshiippii Argachuuf
• __Sareen Walquunnamtii Saalaa booda
• __Gootota Afaan Oromoo
• __Hariiroo Profeesara Wajjiin
• __Kaayyoo Jireenyaa
• _Dinqisiisoo
• __Addunyaa sa'a 24 Aduun ba'u
• _Choose studying field
• __Study English

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS AND THEIR ANSWERS FOR ETHIOPIAN UNIVERSITY FRESHMAN STUDENTS.

  logic and critical thinking questions and their answers compiled from last year exams encompassing every part of the course for ethiopian university freshman students .

DO YOURSELF BEFORE WE ANSWER AND BE BENRFITTED FROM IT!!!

1. Which of the following is correct regarding a sound deductive argument?

A. Valid deductive argument plus all true premises

B. Strong inductive argument plus all true premises

C. It is not necessary that the content of the premises be true.

2. One of the following is a type of syllogism that uses conditional sentences for one or both of its premises

A. Hypothetical syllogism

B. Causal inference

C. Categorical syllogism

D. Prediction

3. Ethiopia is the greatest country in the world because my father told me so. The form of argumentation that this argument used is

A. An argument based on sign

B. Argument from authority

C. Argument from definition

4. My son Tesfaye is the same age as your son Abraham and they both entered school at the same time. Tesfaye is now in grade eight. Therefore probably your son Abraham is also in grade eight. The form of argumentation that this argument used is

A. Causal inference

B. Disjunctive argument

C. Argument based on definition

D. Argument based on analogy

5. "Short" means a person who is less than 1.5 meters

A. Stipulative definition

B. Lexical definition

C. Précising definition

D. Persuasive definition

6. A stipulative definition is not explained by one of the following statement

A. It cannot be evaluated as true or false

B. Formed by coining a new word

C. Useful to report a meaning a word already has in a language

D. Serve to provide a new meaning to an old word

7. "Dragon, Big Dragon, Big brown Dragon, Big brown scary Dragon" This arrangements of terms is

A. Increasing intention

B. Empty extension

C. Decreasing extension

8. Plus means this "+". The technique used in this definition is

A. Subclass

B. Enumerative

C. Demonstrative

D. Etymology

9. Which one of the following is ODD about critical thinking?

A. The intellect is equally important like the body in the due process of critical thinking

B. Being intelligent is sufficient to be critical thinker

C. It is acquired by nature

D. None of the above

10. Robert Ennis defined critical thinking as

A. A journey to arrive at the most useful destination while evaluating claims for scientific truth

B. A reasonable and reflective thinking focusing on desciding what to believe or to do.

C. An attitude of being despised to consider in a thoughtful way

D. An academic competency

11. Which one of the following statement is correct?

A.  Man is rational being, thus he/she is critical thinker

B. Critical thinking is thinking by degrading a society’s norm, values, laws and tradition

C. Critical thinking is less helpful to be successful in academic arena

D. It is unsound to assume that everyone can be equally be critical thinker

12. One of the following is not among the characteristics of critical thinkers

A. Inquisitive

B. Companionate

C. Out feeling

D. Disposition

13. Which one is ODD about fallacious passage?

A. The statement that constitute fallacious passage have "false" truth value necessarily

B. All bad arguments are fallacious, necessarily

C. No other than inductive and deductive can commit fallacy of any form

D. Some cogent arguments commit fallacy

14. Why majority of Americans choose V8 car? No car is comparable withV8 cars. This argument committed which one of the following fallacy?

A. Appeal to pity

B. Appeal to people

C. Appeal to force

15. A fallacy based on the ideas that if many people agree on the same point, it must be true is

B. Snobbery

C. Bandwagon

16. If my brother likes to eats a lot of pizza and cream biscuit and he is healthy, I can say that pizza and cream biscuit are healthy and do not really make a person fat. A fallacy of this passage is

A. False cause

B. Slippery slope

C. Hasty generalization

D. Weak analogy

17. All invalid argument commits formal fallacy

18. Some fallacious passages are inferential

19. Fallacious argument contain one or more factual errors in their form

20. Fallacious reasoning has a necessary deceiving character

21. Critical thinking helps us to investigate data, belief or facts accurately and impartially.

22. Of course you want to drink Bedelle Beer. Why because almost everyone in Ethiopia is drinking it. Such argument commits fallacy of

A. Snobbery

23. Yesterday Dr Tadese told me to stop smoking. But Dr Tadese himself was smoking when he said this. Thus Dr Tadeses' argument is wrong. The argument commits of

A. Ad Hominem circumstantial

B. Tuquoque

C. False cause

24. Stealing is illegal because it is no legal to steal other people's property

A. Begging the question

B. Complex question

C. False dichotomy

D. Suppressed evidence

25. Not everybody can buy a new Abay car. This car is only for special people. This advertisement commits the fallacy of

26. Whenever Saladin said scores for Ethiopia national team, a famous American film actor will immediately die. Therefore in order to stop the death of American film actors, Saladin said should be prevented from scoring goals.

A.   Non causa pro causa

B. Post hoc ergo propter hoc

C. Slippery slope

27. It is absurd that he expects me to heed his advice about diet and exercise when he weighs at least 200 pounds and sits behind a desk everyday

B. Appeal to unqualified authority

C. Appeal to people

D. Tuquoque

28. One of the following fallacies occurs because the link between premises and conclusion is not strong enough

A. Fallacies of relevance

B. Fallacies of presumption

C. Fallacies of weak induction

D. Syllogism

29. I have been cheated by dishonest boss of my severance package and the five weeks of pay. I have tried to find another job, but the infection in my leg kept me bed-ridden. So you have to lend me 200$. I promise to pay you back.

30. Everyone says that a logic course is easier than a Math course. So that must be true.

A. Appeal to force

B. Hasty generalization

D. Appeal to people

31. Which one of the following is fallacy of presumption?

A. Red herring

B. False cause

C. Equivocation

D. Division

E.  Complex question

32. Which one of the following is fallacy of weak induction?

A. Complex question

B. Division

C.  Red herring

D. False cause

E. Equivocation

33 A barrier to critical thinking that uses Hasty generalization fallacious tactics is

A. Relativism

B. Accident

C. Egocentrism

D. Wishful thinking

34. Which types of fallacy commit in the following dialogue?

Dawit: I always wondered why God does not destroy Satan. He destroyed every living being on the earth (besides those on the ark) for much less of the crime.

Tomas: Jesus loves you!

B. Missing the point

C. Strawman

35. The Best way to deal with group centered thinking is

A. Begging the reluctant to the views of others

B. Disregarding societal values and authority at all

C. Develop habits of independent thinking

D. Accepting the views of one's preferred group

E. C and D are answers

36. Which one of the following is fallacy of grammatical analogy?

C. Division

D. Equivocation

E. Complex question

37. The Gahanna football team is very good. Therefore each player in the team is very good. This argument commits the fallacy of

A. Amphiboly

38 Which one of the following is fallacy of relevance?

A.   False cause

B. Equivocation

D. Red herring

39. Either you give me money I will be forced to rob a bank. This argument commits the fallacy of

B. Appeal to ignorance

C. Snobbery

40. An employee says to her boss 'I deserve a two month vacation with pay. If you don't agree to give it to me I am going to tell to your wife about that time you had sex with me. This argument commits the fallacy of

41. Which one of the following is fallacy of ambiguity?

  A. Red herring

D. Complex question

E. False cause

42. Civil service employees cannot currently live on the minimum wage. Therefore the minimum wage should be abolished. This argument commits the fallacy of

A. Strawman

C. Tuquoque

D .False cause

43. Suppose that an argument is unsound. It follows that

A. This argument must have one false premise

B. This argument must be invalid

C. It is invalid and has at least one false premise

D. All of the above

44. Identify the valid argument

A. If there is no gas in the car, and then the car will not run. There is gas in the car. Therefore the car will run.

B. Two third of Africans are men. Peter is an African. Therefore Peter is men.

C. If You are married, then you will have a children . You have children. Hence you are married.

D. If I plant a tree, then I get dust under my nails. I didn't get dust under my nails. Therefore did not plant a tree.

45. A conception of philosophy as an activity implies

A. Philosophy can only be mastered by those over think

B. One can only master philosophy by studying it in school

C. What makes philosopher great philosopher is his achievement

46. One of the following has a form of inductive argument

A.   Argument from authority

B.   Argument from mathematics

C.   Argument from definition

D. Argument from syllogism

47.   One of the following is teleological ethical theory.

A. Utilitarianism

B. Emotivism

C. Anthropology

D. Relativism

48. If God didn't create the universe, who did? Identify the committed here.

C. Begging question

49. Everyone is going to get iPhone pro 13 when it comes one month ago. This fallacy is

A.   Appeal to people

B. Bandwagon

C. Red herring

D. Missing point

YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE QUESTIONS PDF ➥ DOWNLOAD

FOLLOW US ON YOU TUBE

Post a Comment

Contact form.

Logic and Critical Thinking

Jul 27, 2014

750 likes | 1.14k Views

Logic and Critical Thinking. CCC8001 2 nd Term 2013. introduction. Course Particulars. Instructor: Dr. Michael Johnson Office: Room HSH219, Ho Sin Hang Building Office Hours: Monday s 15:00 to 16:00 Email: [email protected] Office Telephone: 2616 7052.

Share Presentation

• ccc8001 2nd term
• homework assignments
• important background
• regulations governing university examinations

Presentation Transcript

Logic and Critical Thinking CCC8001 2nd Term 2013

introduction

Course Particulars • Instructor: Dr. Michael Johnson • Office: Room HSH219, Ho Sin Hang Building • Office Hours: Mondays 15:00 to 16:00 • Email: [email protected] • Office Telephone: 2616 7052

Course Website Go to http://michaeljohnsonphilosophy.com/logic-and-critical-thinking-2013/ All of the powerpoint slides will be posted there, along with reading assignments and homework assignments.

Meeting Times Monday 13:30 to 14:50 Leung KauKui (LKK) G01 Thursday 13:30 to 14:50 LKK 107

Assessment • Attendance: 10%. • Four homework assignments, each worth 5% of the grade, for a total of 20%. • One in-class midterm on 11 March, worth 30%. • One cumulative final exam, worth 40%.

Attendance Attendance is required and accounts for 10% of your final grade. You cannot get an ‘A’ in this course if you do not attend classes. Every day you don’t attend, you lose 0.5 points off your final grade, up to a maximum of 10.

Final Exam The final exam will occur during the scheduled exam period (TBA). It will consist of multiple choice and short-answer questions. It is worth 40% of your final grade. More details will be announced as the date of the final approaches. There will be a review (2/5).

Important Note Students shall be aware of the University regulations about dishonest practice in course work and the possible consequences as stipulated in the Regulations Governing University Examinations.

What is Critical Thinking? There are two basic decisions to make in life: 1. Decide what to believe: What do I believe? 2. Decide what to do: What do I do?

Deciding What to Believe The things you believe (or disbelieve) are claims. Examples of claims include: • Aliens exist. • 2 + 2 = 4. • Pocari Sweat is better than Aquarius. • You should kill children for fun.

Claims Claims can be: General or specific True or false Plausible or implausible Reasonable or unreasonable Supported by evidence or not…

Example: Theories Scientific theories are claims that are supported by lots of evidence, that integrate lots of our knowledge, and that explain and predict lots of phenomena.

Example: Guesses Guesses are claims that the guesser only believes might be true, or are probably true.

Example: Lies A lie is a claim that is known to be false and is made to deceive you into believing something false.

Claims Scientific theories, guesses, and lies are all claims. There are lots of other types of claims: hypotheses, deductions, considerations… A claim is something that is presented as true. Sometimes good reasons are given for accepting it, sometimes no reasons are given, and sometimes misleading reasons are given.

Critical Thinking Is there any evidence to support the claim? Is the evidence reliable and trustworthy? How reliable is it? Should you accept it? Does the evidence actually support the claim? Is there other evidence you should consider?

Critical Thinking Critical thinking involves asking these questions at the right times, knowing how to answer them, and knowing how to use those answers to accept or reject a claim. This is a skills-oriented class. These are the skills we will learn.

You Already Do It You are already a critical thinker. You use critical thinking skills all the time, even if you don’t know it.

Is there any evidence? On a lot of airlines, you are required to turn off your cell phones and other electronic devices during takeoff and landing. Claim: Keeping your devices on poses a danger. But is there any evidence that this is true? Are there studies? What do scientists say?

Is there any evidence? Flu season comes and it’s really bad. You should probably get a flu shot. Or should you go to the traditional Chinese medicine shop? They say their medicine can prevent the flu too.

How reliable is the evidence? Here’s a common story you’ll hear: Claim: Oh, you have a cold? You should get the doctor to prescribe antibiotics for you. Evidence: I got a cold and after a couple days was feeling really bad. I got some antibiotics and two days later, I felt great!

How reliable is the evidence? But this can’t be true. Colds are caused by viruses, and antibiotics only work on bacteria. The story you heard is a case of regression to the mean. People go to the doctor when they’re feeling worst. Of course they feel better later, they would feel better later anyway. Colds usually take care of themselves in 6 days.

Does the evidence support the claim? Companies often pay celebrities and other public figures to endorse their products. Claim: You should buy/ use this product. Evidence: Celebrity X buys/ uses this product. But is it any reason to buy something that some other person is paid to say they like it?

Does the evidence support the claim? But what do those doctors know about the health effects of cigarettes? Have they done studies? Maybe they smoke Camels because they’re cheaper, or because they’re “cooler” or for some other reason.

Is there other evidence to consider? Claim: Prayer heals the sick. Evidence: My mother had cancer, but then I prayed for her. Her cancer went into remission. But how many people were prayed for and not cured? How many people were not prayed for, but still had their cancer go into remission? Does prayer work or was this just an accident?

Critical Thinking Becoming a better critical thinker involves exercising these skills, asking these questions and finding out the answers, more often and more effectively and in a wider range of circumstances.

Logic This course is called Logic and Critical Thinking, and we will be learning about logic. Logic is a helpful tool for verifying the quality of arguments.

Philosophical Arguments In ordinary English, an argument is where two or more people have different views, and they heatedly or angrily discuss them. In philosophy, it’s when we present certain claims as evidence for other claims. So critical thinking is about evaluating arguments– are the claims presented as evidence true? Do they support the conclusions?

Validity An important concept in logic is validity, a particularly strong sort of evidential support. An argument is valid = if the claims presented as evidence in the argument (the “premises”) are true, then the claim that evidence supports (the “conclusion”) of the argument must be true (cannot be false).

Formally Valid Arguments Ancient philosophers (both Western and Chinese) discovered that you can tell that some arguments are valid by looking at their form alone.

Example Here’s an example of a valid argument form: Evidence: If A is true, then B is true. Evidence: A is true. Claim: Therefore, B is true. Notice that even if you don’t know what the claims A and B are, you know that if the evidence is true, then the claim is true.

Logic Logic is the study of formal validity. We try to find all the valid logical forms. That way, if we ever find an argument that has one of those forms, we will know for sure that it is valid. It wasn’t until recently that we (or a German mathematician named Gottlob Frege) found a way to find all the valid logical forms. This is the logic we learn about today.

The Limits of Logic Logic isn’t the entire story. It doesn’t have anything to say about the good arguments that are not formally valid, and it can’t identify bad arguments. There’s also another kind of “goodness” for arguments: a sound argument is valid and its premises are true. But logic alone can’t tell us what’s true.

Deciding What to Do But critical thinking does not end there. Notice that we still do not know what to do. Should I turn off my cell phone on an airplane? Should I smoke Camels? Should I eat shark fin soup if I want to avoid cancer? What do I do?

Choices A choice is a decision between two or more actions. Sometimes choices lead to the outcomes we desire with certainty. Sometimes they only likely lead to the outcome we desire. Sometimes our choices are very unlikely to get us the outcome we desire.

Choices Choices can be: Important or unimportant Easy or difficult Rational or irrational Successful or unsuccessful…

Critical Thinking What outcomes can my choice lead to? Does the outcome of my decision depend on factors other than what I choose to do? What is the likelihood that deciding to take a specific action will lead to a specific outcome? Which outcomes do I most prefer?

What outcomes can my choice lead to? Here’s an example from the United States: A lot of religious conservatives in the U.S. campaign to make abortion illegal, and elect government officials who say they will try to make it illegal. (Important background: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that laws against abortion are unconstitutional.)

What outcomes can my choice lead to? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJh6frpykQk But if abortion is illegal, presumably women who get abortions will go to jail. So do the campaigners who want to make abortion illegal want these women in jail? In the video, we see a woman who’s quite confused as to what outcome her position leads to.

What do the outcomes depend on? Sometimes, when we make a choice, the outcome depends not just on what we’ve chosen to do, but also on what others have chosen. Suppose I have a scholarship that I can offer to exactly one student to come to my school. If they don’t accept it, I cannot offer it to anyone else…

What do the outcomes depend on? If I offer it to the best student, she is most likely to decline it (she has other scholarships to other schools, she may decide to go somewhere else). If I offer it to the worst student, she is most likely to accept it (she probably has no other scholarships and no other admittances). But I don’t want to give money to the worst student!

How likely is this choice to effect this outcome? Sometimes the same action can result in different outcomes with different likelihoods. If I decide to have unprotected sex, there is some probability that I will get AIDS, some probability I will get syphilis, some probability I will not contract any STI, etc. These facts clearly matter to my decision.

Which outcomes do I most prefer? Taking different actions (making different decisions) can often lead to different outcomes. But it’s not always obvious which outcomes to prefer. Obviously $50 is better than $10. But suppose it costs the same to keep someone in jail as to pay for a student to go to college. Do you let criminals out and educate more people?

Framing and the Flu Suppose a new type of flu is spreading through China and experts predict it will move to Hong Kong soon. If nothing is done, it will kill 600. The government is deciding which of two plans to implement. They come to the following rigorous, scientifically certain evaluations of the plans:

Version 1 • If Plan A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. • If Plan B is adopted, there is a 1-in-3 chance that all 600 will be saved, and a 2-in-3 chance that no one will be saved.

Version 2 • If Plan A is adopted, 400 people will die. • If Plan B is adopted, there is a 1-in-3 chance that no one will die, and a 2-in-3 chance that all 600 will die.

Which outcomes do I prefer? Version 1 and Version 2 describe exactly the same plans. Plan A in Version 1 = Plan A in Version 2. Plan B in Version 1 = Plan B in Version 2. Yet 70% of people go with Plan A in Version 1, while only 41% choose Plan A in Version 2.

For Next Class Go to the course website: http://michaeljohnsonphilosophy.com/logic-and-critical-thinking-2013/schedule-and-readings/ Read the reading for next time.

• More by User

Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking Some notes on the midterm If you think we missed credit, please submit your defense by email to [email protected] by Nov. 1. Please address each question separately according to the grading criteria . We do make mistakes, so don't be afraid to address your concerns.

828 views • 17 slides

CRITICAL THINKING

CRITICAL THINKING. The Discipline The Skill The Art. Assumptions . Purpose -Teach critical thinking process as it applies to completing WIC nutritional counseling Assumes audience knows: Basic nutrition and risk factors

1.1k views • 19 slides

Critical Thinking. Introduction to the Unit Keith Jones. Critical Thinking. Critical Thinking 10 Credit Point M Level Dr Keith Jones Core Unit for all the MSc/MA Pathways. Introduction & Rationale.

1.62k views • 19 slides

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING. Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D. Logic and Critical Thinking. Available at http://www.radicalacademy.com/logiccritthinking.htm. TRUTH AND THINKING. Truth is the object of thinking. Some truths are obvious; others are difficult to acquire.

1.05k views • 26 slides

Critical Thinking. Foundations of Science. Let’s think about it. What makes people effective critical thinkers?. Critical Thinking. Critical Thinkers… Are flexible Identify biases & assumptions Maintain an air of skepticism Separate facts from opinions Don’t oversimplify

473 views • 4 slides

Critical Thinking. Richard M. Schwartzstein, MD Executive Director, Carl J. Shapiro Institute for Education and Research Faculty Associate Dean for Medical Education Professor of Medicine Harvard Medical School. Critical Thinking. Do you do it?. Critical Thinking. Do you do it?

858 views • 47 slides

Critical Thinking. The Brain. One trillion cells compose the brain. 100 billion of them are neurons. This makes the number of possible journeys through the brain almost infinite. Your Comments…. “The unexamined life is not worth living.”. Socrates. Plato.

835 views • 32 slides

Critical Thinking. Sitting on top of your shoulders is one of the finest computers on the earth. But, like any other muscle in your body, it needs to be exercised to work its best. That exercise is called THINKING. I think, therefore I am. - Rene Descartes. What is critical thinking?.

1.13k views • 17 slides

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING. The Way to the Good Reasoning and Making Good Argument. 時間： 92 年 10 月 18 日 地點：東吳大學外雙溪 主講：米建國 東吳大學哲學系. What Is Critical Thinking?. Think it twice: Don’t take things for granted so easily.

2.9k views • 19 slides

Critical thinking

Student Services . Critical thinking. Orientation 2011 Angela Dierks. www.bbk.ac.uk/mybirkbeck . Student Services . Critical thinking in everyday life. You think critically all the time for example when deciding not to buy a particular product

729 views • 13 slides

Critical Thinking. GEA 101 Fall 2012. introduction. Course Particulars. Instructor: Dr. Michael Johnson Office: Room HSH219, Ho Sin Hang Building Office Hours: Wednesdays 15:00 to 16:00 Email: [email protected] Office Telephone: 2616 7455. Course Website.

668 views • 44 slides

Critical Thinking and our Inclination Toward Faulty Logic

Critical Thinking and our Inclination Toward Faulty Logic. Arendt. Critical Thinking & our inclination toward Faulty Logic. You have the right to question what you see, hear, and read.

669 views • 35 slides

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING. Lecture 11 – Scientific Reasoning I. REVIEW. First, let’s go over homework from last time. REVIEW. Last time we talked about the relationship between correlation and causation.

709 views • 43 slides

Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Logic and Logical Fallacies

Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Logic and Logical Fallacies. Lecture II. Truth Tables and Logical Operators. Face it…some things are either true or false (specifying this formally is called “propositional calculus”) A “proposition” is a meaningful statement

751 views • 23 slides

Critical Thinking. “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing” - Albert Einstein. Critical Thinking in Your Life. Personal Life What constitutes a healthy diet? Which investment is better for my family? Why? Professional Life

1.26k views • 17 slides

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING by Karey Perkins

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING by Karey Perkins. RHETORICAL APPEALS: USING LOGOS, ETHOS, PATHOS. LOGOS = LOGIC and REASON= Soundness of facts, evidence, statistics, and reasoning; soundness of authority’s statements outside self; well-documented evidence

897 views • 71 slides

PHIL 002, Section 5 Logic and Critical Thinking

PHIL 002, Section 5 Logic and Critical Thinking. About this course. About this course. There’s so many of us!!!. About this course. There’s so many of us!!! Instructional staff. About this course. There’s so many of us!!! Instructional staff

281 views • 15 slides

PHIL 102-01 Logic and Critical Thinking Fall 2006

PHIL 102-01 Logic and Critical Thinking Fall 2006. About this course. About this course. There’s so many of us!!!. About this course. There’s so many of us!!! Instructional staff. About this course. There’s so many of us!!! Instructional staff

324 views • 20 slides

Dr. Andreas Yumarma. LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING. First Meeting. Sense of Logic. Study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning (Irving M. Copy & Carl Cohen, 1990)

493 views • 11 slides

Critical thinking about critical thinking

Critical thinking about critical thinking. Paula Owens and John Hopkin. Workshop description Based on two practical activities, this workshop will explore what critical thinking means in the context of geography, apply it to some examples and consider how to apply it in the classroom

957 views • 28 slides

Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking

Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking. DEFINITION. Definitions. A definition is an attempt to explain the meaning of a word by using a different word or phrase that has the same meaning. The word being defined is called the definiendum (Latin for “to be defined”).

472 views • 32 slides