Critical Thinking: Reason and Evidence - D265

Question 1

PROPOSITIONS

Answer 1

Are statements that can be true or false

Question 2

NON-PROPOSITONS

Answer 2

Are sentences that are not statements about matters of fact or fiction. They do not make a claim that can be true or false.

Question 3

SIMPLE PROPOSITIONS

Answer 3

Have no internal logic structure, meaning whether they are true or false does not depend on whether a part of them is true or false. They are simply true or false on their own. (Example: Harry Potter wears glasses. The sky is blue.)

Question 4

COMPLEX PROPOSITIONS

Answer 4

Have internal logic structure, meaning they are composed of simple propositions. Whether they are true or false depends on whether their parts are true or false. (Example: The sky is blue, but it does not look blue to me right now. The cat ate the food, but he did not like it. The GDP of Canada is either $3 trillion or $12 trillion.)

Question 5

Words used to identify Independent Propositions

Answer 5

AND, OR, EITHER, BUT, IF, THEN.

Question 6

CONCLUSION INDICATORS

Answer 6

THEREFORE, SO, IT FOLLOWS THAT, HENCE, THUS, ENTAILS THAT, WE MAY CONCLUDE THAT, IMPLIES THAT, WHEREFORE, AND AS A RESULT.

Question 7

PREMISE INDICATORS

Answer 7

BECAUSE, FOR, GIVEN THAT, AS, SINCE, AS INDICATED BY.

Question 8

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

Answer 8

Arguments where the premises guarantee or necessitate the conclusion.
-mathematical arguments, logical arguments, arguments from definition.

Question 9

INDUCTION ARGUMENTS

Answer 9

Arguments where the premises make the conclusion probable.
-analogies, authority, causal inferences, extrapolations, etc.

Question 10

INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION OR ABDUCTION

Answer 10

Arguments where the best available explanation is chosen as the correct explanation.

Question 11

FORMAL FALLACY

Answer 11

Concerns the structure of an argument

Question 12

INFORMAL FALLACY

Answer 12

Concerns the informational content of an argument

Question 13

A FORMAL FALLACY IS A TYPE OF

Answer 13

Bad Argument Structure

Question 14

Which piece of information would be the most helpful to know in assessing the credibility of a news story?

Answer 14

Whether the name of the author and the publication are identified

Question 15

Which questions are most appropriate for evaluating the credibility of an information source?

Answer 15

Who funded it? & Does it try to get you to distrust other sources?

Question 16

PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY

Answer 16

The principle of charity suggests we should try to understand ideas before criticizing them.

Question 17

Which of the following are reasons for applying the principle of charity?

Answer 17

It is morally right to give others the benefit of the doubt.
It allows for a clearer understanding of the issue.

Question 18

CONFIRMATION BIAS

Answer 18

the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one’s existing beliefs or theories.

Question 19

COGNITIVE BIAS

Answer 19

a systematic thought process caused by the tendency of the human brain to simplify information processing through a filter of personal experience and preferences.

Question 20

HEURISTICS

Answer 20

are practical rules of thumb that manifest as mental shortcuts in judgment and decision-making.

Question 21

Equivocation Fallacy

Answer 21

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.

Question 22

hasty generalization fallacy

Answer 22

The hasty generalization fallacy is sometimes called the over-generalization fallacy. It is basically making a claim based on evidence that it just too small. Essentially, you can’t make a claim and say that something is true if you have only an example or two as evidence.

Question 23

appeal to ignorance fallacy

Answer 23

This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it.

Question 24

Slippery slope fallacy

Answer 24

A slippery slope fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim about a series of events that would lead to one major event, usually a bad event. In this fallacy, a person makes a claim that one event leads to another event and so on until we come to some awful conclusion.

Question 25

post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

Answer 25

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is an informal fallacy that states: “Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.” It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy

Question 26

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy

Answer 26

Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. EX: One example of the burden of proof fallacy is someone who claims that ghosts exists, but doesn’t prove this, and instead shifts the burden of proof to others, by stating that anyone who disagrees should prove ghosts don’t exist.

Question 27

Confirmation bias

Answer 27

Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their existing beliefs or hypotheses. Confirmation bias happens when a person gives more weight to evidence that confirms their beliefs and undervalues evidence that could disprove it.

Question 28

selection bias

Answer 28

Selection bias is a distortion in a measure of association (such as a risk ratio) due to a sample selection that does not accurately reflect the target population. EX: Selection bias also occurs when people volunteer for a study. Those who choose to join (i.e. who self-select into the study) may share a characteristic that makes them different from non-participants from the get-go

Question 29

Anchoring bias

Answer 29

Anchoring bias is a cognitive bias that causes us to rely too heavily on the first piece of information we are given about a topic. When we are setting plans or making estimates about something, we interpret newer information from the reference point of our anchor, instead of seeing it objectively.

Question 30

sound argument

Answer 30

Soundness: An argument is sound if it meets these two criteria: (1) It is valid. (2) Its premises are true.

Question 31

valid argument

Answer 31

A valid argument is an argument in which the conclusion must be true whenever the hypotheses are true. EX: “It rains only if I carry an umbrella” can be rewritten as “If it rains, then I carry an umbrella.”
“All citizens of Egypt speak Arabic.” can be rewritten as “If someone is a citizen of Egypt, then they speak Arabic.”

Question 32

unsound argument

Answer 32

An unsound argument is either an invalid argument or a valid argument with at least one false premise. EX: All dogs are mammals. Therefore, dogs are cows. The above argument contains true premises, but it is invalid since the conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the premises. Therefore, it is also an unsound argument.

Question 33

strong argument

Answer 33

A strong argument is a non-deductive argument that succeeds in providing probable, but not conclusive, logical support for its conclusion.

Question 34

cogent argument

Answer 34

A cogent argument is an inductive argument that is both strong and all of its premises are true.

Question 35

uncogent argument

Answer 35

An uncogent argument is an inductive argument that is either weak or has at least one false premise.

Question 36

Denying the Antecedent

Answer 36

also known as inverse error and fallacy of the inverse, is a logical fallacy whereby someone fallaciously makes an inverse deduction in a conditional statement. It takes one cause as a condition for something else to occur and then states that the latter won’t occur when the condition is observed to be untrue.

Question 37

representativeness

Answer 37

When people rely on representativeness to make judgments, they are likely to judge wrongly because the fact that something is more representative does not actually make it more likely.

Question 38

Affirming the Consequent

Answer 38

is a logical fallacy that involves taking a true statement and assuming the converse form would be true as well. Formally, we can represent this fallacy as follows: If X is the case, then Y is also the case. Y is true, so X must be true as well.

Question 39

anchoring and adjustment

Answer 39

the tendency to judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by using a starting point (called an anchor) and then making adjustments up or down (a cognitive heuristic where a person starts off with an initial idea and adjusts their beliefs based on this starting point.)

Question 40

availability

Answer 40

estimating the likelihood of events based on their availability in memory; if instances come readily to mind (perhaps because of their vividness), we presume such events are common EX: two girls saw a plane crash on the news and cancel their flight presuming they will meet the same fate.

Question 41

fallacy fallacy

Answer 41

is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, then its conclusion must be false.

Question 42

Inference

Answer 42

A conclusion one can draw from the presented details. EX: “if there is a storm, then the office is closed.” means “if the office is closed, then I don’t go to work.”

Question 43

weak argument

Answer 43

a non-deductive argument that fails to provide probable support for its conclusion.

Question 44

Straw figure

Answer 44

The straw figure or straw man fallacy happens when someone (willfully or mistakenly) misinterprets someone else’s argument or position. The opponent’s argument or position is characterized uncharitably so as to make it seem ridiculous or indefensible. It is a fallacy of relevance because the arguer is attacking an irrelevant argument.

Question 45

Red Herring

Answer 45

A red herring is a logical fallacy in which irrelevant information is presented alongside relevant information, distracting attention from that relevant information.

Question 46

Irrelevant Appeals

Answer 46

Any kind of appeal to a factor, consideration, or reason that isn’t relevant to the argument at hand is called an Irrelevant Appeal.

        Appeal to Unqualified/False Authority
        Appeal to Force
        Appeal to Popularity/to the People/Bandwagon
        Appeal to Consequences

Question 47

Appeal to Unqualified Authority

Answer 47

This fallacy is used when a person appeals to a false authority as evidence for a claim. These fallacious arguments from authority are the result of citing a non-authority as an authority.

Question 48

Appeal to Force

Answer 48

This argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion.

Question 49

Appeal to the People

Answer 49

The fallacy of appeal to appeal to the people consists of arguing that a claim is true because a lot of people believe it, or that a claim is false because a lot of people do not believe it.

Question 50

Appeal to Consequences

Answer 50

The major fallacy of logos, arguing that something cannot be true because if it were the consequences or outcome would be unacceptable.

Question 51

A false dilemma

Answer 51

misrepresents an issue by presenting only two mutually exclusive options rather than the full, nuanced range of options

Question 52

The genetic fallacy

Answer 52

is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content.

Question 53

Appeal to Ignorance

Answer 53

This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.

Question 54

The Texas Sharpshooter

Answer 54

a logical fallacy based on the metaphor of a gunman shooting the side of a barn, then drawing targets around the bullethole clusters to make it look like he hit the target.