D265 Critical Thinking

Question 1

Making a decision or argument based only on easily accessible information.

Answer 1

Availability Bias

Question 2

Argue a position is true as justification to claim a threat on the listener.

Answer 2

Appeal to Force

Question 3

Attempt to interpret another’s argument or reasoning in the best light.

Answer 3

Principle of Charity

Question 4

Making judgements about a group of people, things, or events without enough evidence or too small a sample size.

Answer 4

Hasty Generalization

Question 5

Deciding what group an individual belongs to based on characteristics reminiscent of that group.

Answer 5

Representativeness Bias

Question 6

Using the fact that a fallacy was committed to justify rejecting the conclusion.

Answer 6

Fallacy Fallacy

Question 7

List the Fallacies of Presumption. (3)

Answer 7

1. Begging the Question
2. False Dilemma (False Dichotomy / Black or White Fallacy)
3. Shifting the Burden of Proof

Question 8

Using the same word in two different senses or meanings within the same argument.

Answer 8

Equivocation

Question 9

A flawed argument due to its content, not its structure.

Answer 9

Informal Fallacy

Question 10

Tendencies to deviate from rational belief-forming practices.

Answer 10

Cognitive Biases

Question 11

List the different cognitive biases. (6)

Answer 11

1. Confirmation Bias
2. Availability Bias
3. Representativeness Bias
4. Selection Bias
5. Anchoring Bias
6. Alief

Question 12

List the Fallacies of Weak Induction. (5)

Answer 12

1. Appeal to Ignorance
2. Slippery Slope
3. Texas Sharpshooter (Fallacy of Cherry-Picking)
4. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)
5. Hasty Generalization

Question 13

A general rule, strategy, or shortcut gets us where we need to survive, but does not always work in all situations.

Answer 13

Heuristic

Question 14

When evaluating a deductive argument, what are the four possible descriptors? Which two evaluate the argument structure, and which two evaluate the content of the argument?

Answer 14

1. Valid (structure)
2. Invalid (structure)
3. Sound (content)
4. Unsound (content)

Question 15

List the subtypes of the Ad Hominem fallacy. (4)

Answer 15

1. Abusive
2. Circumstantial
3. Tu Quoque
4. Guilty by Association

Question 16

Attack the arguer instead of the argument.

Answer 16

Ad Hominem Fallacy

Question 17

Argument where the premises intend to guarantee or necessitate the conclusion.

Answer 17

Deductive inference

Question 18

Reason the truth or reasonableness of an idea based on the possible results of accepting the idea.

Answer 18

Appeal to Consequences

Question 19

Appeal to the popularity of a conclusion as a basis that the conclusion is true.

Answer 19

Ad Populum (Appeal to the People)

Question 20

Deciding something about a group based on some example from that group that is unlikely to reflect the whole.

Answer 20

Selection Bias

Question 21

Argument where the premises intend to make the conclusion probable.

Answer 21

Inductive inference

Question 22

Change the subject to avoid the real issue at hand.

Answer 22

Red Herring Fallacy

Question 23

An argument with a flawed structure.

Answer 23

Formal Fallacy

Question 24

Trust an expert on one subject to speak on another subject about which they have no expertise.

Answer 24

Appeal to Unqualified/Fake Authority

Question 25

Willfully or mistakenly misinterpret someone else's argument usually to make it less defensible.

Answer 25

Straw Figure Fallacy (Straw Man)

Question 26

The natural tendency to seek out evidence supporting our existing beliefs and ignoring evidence that undermines our beliefs.

Answer 26

Confirmation Bias

Question 27

Everything seems to be taking place in my area right now, even when it is not.

Answer 27

Context Collapse

Question 28

List the valid deductive argument forms. (2) Hint: Often named in Latin.

Answer 28

1. Modus Ponens (Affirming the antecedent) 2. Modus Tollens (Denying the consequent)

Question 29

List the formal fallacies. (2)

Answer 29

1. Denying the antecedent. 2. Affirming the consequent.

Question 30

When evaluating an inductive argument, what are the four possible descriptors? Which two evaluate the argument structure, and which two evaluate the content of the argument?

Answer 30

1. Strong (structure) 2. Weak (structure) 3. Cogent (content) 4. Uncogent (content)

Question 31

Assuming that there are fewer options (usually two) than there really are.

Answer 31

False Dilemma (False Dichotomy / Black or White Fallacy)

Question 32

Making an estimation based on a wrong idea of what is normal because of a recent example.

Answer 32

Anchoring Bias

Question 33

Acting on something that you know isn't true as if it were true.

Answer 33

Alief

Question 34

Determining something happened just because another thing happened before it.

Answer 34

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)

Question 35

Using the desired conclusion to determine which evidence to take into account.

Answer 35

Texas Sharpshoot (Cherry-Picking)

Question 36

Presenting an argument and deciding that another must provide evidence whether it is true or false.

Answer 36

Shifting the Burden of Proof

Question 37

Using lack of proof against a claim to justify believing that claim.

Answer 37

Appeal to Ignorance

Question 38

Tying one event to another (usually disastrous) event via a chain of intermediary events.

Answer 38

Slippery Slope

Question 39

Critique the origin of a claim rather than the claim itself.

Answer 39

Genetic Fallacy

Question 40

Inference to the best explanation.

Answer 40

Abduction

Question 41

A curated and selected set of inputs, usually on the internet or social media.

Answer 41

Algorithm bubble

Question 42

List the types of Irrelevant Appeal. (4)

Answer 42

1. Appeal to (Unqualified/Fake) Authority 2. Appeal to Force 3. Ad Populum (Appeal to the People) 4. Appeal to Consequences

Question 43

List the Fallacies of Relevance. (6)

Answer 43

1. Ad Hominem 2. Genetic 3. Straw Figure 4. Red Herring 5. Irrelevant Appeals 6. Equivocation

Question 44

Any kind of appeal to a factor, consideration, or reason that doesn't apply to the argument at hand.

Answer 44

Irrelevant Appeals Fallacy

Question 45

Assuming the thing that is supposed to be proven.

Answer 45

Begging the Question