Exam 1

Question 1

definition of critical thinking

Answer 1

More than just reasoning, it is thinking that critiques/deeper thought

Question 2

truth

Answer 2

a claim is true if it is free from error

Question 3

knowledge

Answer 3

f you believe something, have argument beyond reasonable doubt that it is so, and have no reason to think you’re mistaken then you can claim you know it

Question 4

facts

Answer 4

something that has really occurred or is actually the case

Question 5

five branches of philosophy

Answer 5

1. Metaphysics-what is real?
2. Epistemology-what is knowledge?
3. Ethics- how should we act?
4. Aesthetics- what is beauty?
5. Logic- what patterns of reasoning are reliable?

Question 6

arguments

Answer 6

A passage shows an argument if purports to prove

Question 7

Non-arguments often confused as arg.

Answer 7

warnings, pieces of advice, statements alone, conditional statements, reports, illustrations, explanations

Question 8

the anatomy of an arg

Answer 8

Premise analogue, conclusion analogue, attribute of interest

Question 9

deduction

Answer 9

attempts to prove or demonstrate a conclusion. Either valid and invalid or sound and unsound (sound arg is one that is valid and has all true premises)

Question 10

induction

Answer 10

does not attempt to prove or demonstrate conclusion, but rather support a conclusion. Relatively strong or weak but can never provide absolute truth of conclusion

Question 11

Types of inductive arg: predictions

Answer 11

arg that proceeds from our knowledge of past to a claim about the future.(EX: Last summer was dry and hot, so i bet next summer will be dry and hot too.)

Question 12

Types of inductive arg: arg. from analogy

Answer 12

arg that has attribute b/c similar thing has that attribute

Question 13

Types of inductive arg: generalizations

Answer 13

reasoning that all/most/ or some percent of member in a population have an attribute b/c all/most/some percent of population have that attribute.
(Ex: most pitbulls i’ve met are sweet. Therefore most pits are sweet)

Question 14

types of inductive arg.: arg from signs

Answer 14

arg that proceeds from knowledge of a sign to a claim about the things or situation that the sign symbolizes

Question 15

Types of inductive arg: arg. from authority

Answer 15

arg that concludes something is true b/c presumed expert or witness has said it is

Question 16

Types of inductive arg: causal inferences

Answer 16

sets forth the cause of some event. (EX:
“The floor is wet because the toilet is leaking” whereas arg would look like “the toilet is leaking b/c the floor is wet”)

Question 17

validity

Answer 17

valid doesn’t mean true/true premises/or true conclusion. A valid arg is able to contain all false claims. Also if the premises are true then the conclusion is too. (ex: All cats are dogs, all dogs are monkeys, so all cats are monkeys (valid not sound))

Question 18

soundess

Answer 18

valid + all premises are known to be true

Question 19

conclusion indicators

Answer 19

therefore, thus, so, accordingly, hence, we may conclude, it follows that, as a result

Question 20

premise indicators

Answer 20

since, because, for, in that, given that, seeing that, owing to, in as much as

Question 21

statistical syllogism

Answer 21

Applies a general statement to a specific case. (Ex: most teachers are democrats. York is a teacher. Therefore york is a democrat )

Question 22

fallacies of weak induction

Answer 22

Occur because connection between the premises and conclusion is not strong.
Some fallacies of weak induction are appeal to unqualified authority, hasty generalizations, weak analogy, slippery slope, false cause.

Question 23

hasty generalizations

Answer 23

occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that sample is not representative of the group

Question 24

slippery slope

Answer 24

occurs when conclusion of arg. rests upon an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient reason to think the chain reaction has actually taken place

Question 25

false cause

Answer 25

a weak causal inference and occurs whenever link between premises and conclusion depend on some imagined causal connection that prolly doesn’t exist
And

Question 26

weak analogy

Answer 26

weak arg based on debatable/unimportant similarities between 2 things

Question 27

attacking the analogy

Answer 27

showing premise and conclusion analogue are not as similar as implied

Question 28

metaphor

Answer 28

Uses on thing to mean another and make comparison between the 2. (Similes use like or as)

Question 29

Method of agreement: common threads

Answer 29

example of figuring out cause of hives/rash

Question 30

method of differences: relevant differences

Answer 30

Bike race example (didn’t finish races 1-4, but finished the 5th. Figuring out the differences in the races that caused the finishing of the 5th one)

Question 31

Post hoc

Answer 31

after this, therefore b/c of this

Question 32

Cum hoc

Answer 32

with this therefore b/c of this

Question 33

gamblers fallacy

Answer 33

Depends on supposition that independent events in a game of chance are causally related
(i win at casinos every time i wear green, so i should wear green next time i go too)

Question 34

Assessing the credibility sources

Answer 34

Kind and amount Education and experience both matter. Physical and mental factors may be relevant. Objectivity, bias, prejudice, and possible conflicts of interest should be considered

Question 35

All-or-nothing: a false dilemma

Answer 35

Presents 2 choices as though they are the only two options

Question 36

Assessing the credibility claims

Answer 36

Our own personal observations provide our most reliable source of info about the world

Question 37

The 3 options in regards to acceptance of a claim

Answer 37

accept claim, reject claim, and suspend judgement (always suspend judgement if the stakes are high)