Final Exam Critical Thinking Flashcards
The three criteria for evaluating an argument are
- acceptability, relevance, sufficiency
Which answer best describes “critical thinking”?
- the careful application of reason in the determination of whether a claim is true
What is a “premise”?
A claim offered as a reason for believing another claim
What is an “opinion”?
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
A premise to an argument is relevant to that arguments conclusion if:
The truth of the premise counts in favor of the arguments conclusion
The premises of argument are sufficient if
The premises, taken together, give a strong enough reason to accept the conclusion
An argument in which the conclusion cannot be false, if the premises are true
A deductive argument
An argument in which the conclusion is held to be improbable, if the premises are true
An inductive argument
A defect in an argument that consists in something other than merely false premises
A fallacy
An argument is cogent if
The acceptable, relevant premises are sufficient to support the conclusion
An argument is valid if
It is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is the false
What is the main difference between an “argument” and an “explanation”?
Explanations merely seek to inform, whereas argument seek to persuade
What is the basis for determining the relative weakness or strength of an argument?
The amount of support the premises provide for the conclusion
Judgments concerning “matters of taste” or ethical determinations are frequently said to be what?
Value judgements
Words which carry strong emotive value or associative power
Dysphemisms (loaded terms)
The discipline or practice frequently referred to as “the art of persuasion”
Rhetoric
The fallacy of sliding from one meaning of a term to another in the middle of an argument. In other words, using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misdleading
Equivocation
A person who stands to gain soemthing from our belief in a claim is known as
An interested party
A person who does not stands to gain something from our belief in a claim is known as
A disinterested party
When a new or old term is designated to mean something distinct within a specific context, it is said to have
Stipulative definition
When an arguer attacks the person with whom they are arguing rather than that person argument
Argumentum ad hominem (argument against the person)
A form of ad hominem fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that an argument is wrong if the source making he claim has itself spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with it. The fallacy focuses on the perceived hypocrisy of the opponent rather than the merits of their argument
Ur quoque (you also)
The fallacy of arguing that a claim must be true merely because a substantial number of people believe it
Appeal to popularity
The fallacy of distorting, weakening, or oversimplifying someone’s position so that it can be more easily attacked or refuted
The straw man fallacy
The fallacy of arguing that a claim is true just because it has not been shown to be false
Appeal to ignorance
The fallacy of deliberately raising an irrelevant issue during an argument as a diversion or distraction from the main topic
The red herring fallacy
The error of thinking that previous events can effect the probabilities in the random event under consideration
The gamblers fallacy
The fallacy of drawing a conclusion about a target group based upon an inadequate sample size
Hasty generalization
The fallacy of pre-providing information which will create a bias against the speaker before they have a chance to offer their argument
Poisoning the well
The fallacy of citing a source whose credibility is in question
Appeal to unqualified authority
The fallacy of claiming that a moderate or sensible action will inevitably lead to an extreme action, therefor the moderate action should not be taken
The fallacy of slippery of slope
A fallacy involving circular reading in wherein the conclusion to the argument is assumed or stated in one or more of the premises
Begging the question
The fallacy of presenting two scenarios- one desirable one undesirable- as if they are the only alternatives available
False dichotomy or false dilemma
The term describes the weight of evidence or argument required by one side in a debate or disagreement
Burden of proof
The whole collection of individuals under a study
Target group( target population)
The observed members of a target group in an observational study
A sample
A sample that is selected randomly from a target group in such a way as to ensure that the sample is representative
Random sample
A sample that resembles the target group in all relevant ways
Representative sample
A condition for the occurrence of an event without which the event cannot occur
Necessary condition
A condition for the occurrence of an event that guarantees that the event occurs
Sufficient conditions
The fallacy that states that since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X:
Post hoc fallacy
The fallacy wherein someone applies standards, principles, and or rules to towhees while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Double standards.
Special pleading
The tendency for individuals to seek out or favor information that supports their established beliefs or opinions, while correspondingly disregarding or avoiding information that does not support their belief structure
Confirmation bias
When someone maintains a hasty generalization by simply excluding a counterexample from that generalization
The no true Scotsman fallacy
The fallacy of dismissing an argument or complaint due to the existence of more important problems in the world, regardless of whether those problems bear relevance to the initial argument. If X is not as bad as Y therefore X is not a problem
The fallacy of relative privation
A form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing is inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible
Reduction to absurdity
Arguments of this type If P then QP/ Therefore, Q or P>Q, P- Q are referred to as
The way of affirmation (modus ponens)
The formal fallacy involves arriving at an affirmative conclusion from merely negative premises. Any valid forms of categorical syllogisms that assert a negative premise must have a negative conclusion
Illicit negative
Traditionally known as an “A maiore ad minus” argument. this class of arguments makes an assertion about a specific member of a class, based upon what holds true for the class more generally
Arguing from the general to the specific
What should happen to a margin of error a sample size increases
It should decrease
This type of casual explanation describes the general conditions under which a specific event occurred on
A physical cause explanation
This type of casual explanation describes classes of human actions as it relates to their psychological, sociological, economic, or historical conditions
Behavioral casual explanations
A casual explanation offered for further investigation or testing. This is a form of inference to the best explanation
A hypothesis
An interface between a cause and effect- an apparatus- that has the property of making the effect happen, given the cause. This separates mere correlation from causation
A casual explanation
According to Harry Frankfurt, what is is that bullshit essentially misinterprets?
The intentions of the speaker
A diversionary tactic whereby someone shifts criticism from themselves or their allies onto others by bringing up the shortcomings of the interlocutor or their allies by saying “what about…” followed by some unrelated event, action, or position
Whataboutism
A form of persistent manipulation that causes the victim to doubt her or himself, and ultimately lose their own sense of perception, identity and self worth
Gaslighting
A theory of truth which states that the truth of any proposition consists in its coherence with some specified set of propositions
A coherence theory of truth
A theory of truth which that’s that truth consists in a relation to reality, I.e., that truth is a relational property involving a characteristics relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified):
A correspondence theory of truth
In their book, manufacturing consent, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky maintain that in a democracy, physical force is typically removed as a means of coercion. Therefore, control in a society must rely upon on what
Propaganda
Within a sentence, the properties of being “right”, “wrong”, or “indifferent” are said to reflect the statements
Truth function
