Chapter 10: Reasoning Flashcards
Affirmation of the consequent
Book definition: “The logical fallacy that one can reason from the affirmation of the consequent of a conditional statement to the affirmation of its antecedent: ‘If A, then B’ and ‘B is true’ together can be thought (falsely) to imply ‘A is true’. (p. 240)”
Antecedent
Book definition: “The condition of a conditional statement; that is, the A in ‘If A, then B’. (p. 239)”
Atmosphere hypothesis
Book definition: “The proposal by Woodworth and Sells that, when faced with a categorical syllogism, people tend to accept conclusions having the same quantifiers as those of the premises. (p. 248)”
Attribute identification
Book definition: “The problem of determining what attributes are relevant to the formation of a hypothesis. See also rule learning. (p. 253)”
Categorical syllogism
Book definition: “A syllogism consisting of statements that have logical quantifiers in which one premise relates A to B, another relates B to C, and the conclusion relates A to C. (p. 247)”
Conditional statement
Book definition: “An assertion that, if an antecedent is true, then a consequent must be true: a statement of the form ‘If A, then B’. (p. 239)”
Confirmation bias
Book definition: “The tendency to seek evidence that is consistent with one’s current hypothesis. (p. 255)”
Consequent
Book definition: “The result of a conditional statement; the B in ‘If A, then B’. (p. 239)”
Deductive reasoning
Book definition: “Reasoning in which the conclusions can be determined to follow with certainty from the premises. (p. 239)”.
Denial of the antecedent
Book definition: “The logical fallacy that one can reason from the denial of the antecedent of a conditional statement to the denial of its consequent: ‘If A, then B’ and ‘Not A’ together are thought (falsely) to imply ‘Not B’. (p. 241)”
Inductive reasoning
Book definition: “Reasoning in which the conclusions follow only probabilistically from the premises. (p. 239)”
Logical quantifiers
Book definition: “An element such as ‘all’, ‘no’, ‘some’ and ‘some not’ that appears in such statements as ‘All A are B’. (p. 246)”
Mental model theory
Book definition: “Johnson-Laird’s theory that participants judge a syllogism by imagining a world that satisfies the premises and seeing whether the conclusion is satisfied in that world. (p. 250)”
Modus tollens
Book definition: “The rule of logic stating that, if a conditional statement is true and its consequent is false, then its antecedent must be false: Given the proposition ‘If A, then B’ and the fact that ‘B is false’, we can infer that ‘A is false’. (p. 240)”
Modus ponens
Book definition: “The rule of logic stating that, if a conditional statement is true and its antecedent is true, then its consequent must be true: Given both the proposition ‘If A, then B’ and the proposition ‘A’, we can infer that ‘B is true’. (p. 239)”
Particular statement
Book definition: “A statement, frequently using the word ‘some’, that logicians interpret as meaning it is true about at least some members of a category. Contrast with universal statement. (p. 248)”
Permission schema
Book definition: “An interpretation of a conditional statement in which the antecedent specifies the situations in which the consequent is permitted. (p. 243)”
Rule learning
Book definition: “Determining how the features combine to make a hypothesis. (p. 253)”
Selection task
Book definition: “A task in which a participant is given a conditional statement of the form ‘If A, then B’ and must choose which situations among ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘Not A’, and ‘Not B’ need to be checked to test the truth of the conditional. (p. 242)”
Syllogism
Book definition: “A logical argument consisting of two premises and a conclusion. (p. 238)”
Type 1 process
Book definition: “Rapid and automatic processes that sometimes determine reasoning and decision making. (p. 257)”
Type 2 process
Book definition: “Slow and deliberate processes that sometimes determine reasoning and decision making. (p. 257)”
Universal statement
Book definition: “A statement, often involving words like ‘all’ or ‘none’, that logicians interpret as having no exceptions. Contrast with particular statement. (p. 247)”
