Reasoning Flashcards
What is the difference between Deductive and Inductive reasoning?
Give an example *chocolate
Associate both to the 2 major schools of reasoning.
Deductions refers to predicting specific things from general principles.
ex) Deduct candies from the bag, taking something specific from the general bag.
Deductive= Rationalist
Inductive reasoning is when you generalize from specific instance.
ex) One thinks ALL chocolate will taste good because you have had chocolate before.
Inductive = Empiricist
What is categorical syllogisms referring to? Who is connected to this? What did this person develop?
Why is it called perfect syllogism??
Categorical syllogisms are formal arguments in which a conclusion is drawn based on generalities stated in 2 premises.
Aristotle = formal logic.
All A are B
All B are C
Therefore, all A are C
This is called a perfect syllogism because the form always results in a valid conclusion.
When evaluating categorical syllogisms what steps must we follow:
When evaluating categorical syllogisms follow these steps:
1) Assume the premises are true
2) Evaluate whether the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises (validity)
3) Determine if premises are true (soundness)
If you have a valid argument, you can then go back to evaluate whether the premises are true. If they’re true, they’re sound argument.
What distinguishes a sound and valid argument?
A sound argument must be true. An argument can be valid but not sound.
What is needed for effective reasoning?
Soundness
All poodles are animals
All animals are wild
Therefore, all poodles are wild
Which of these premises is untrue?
Premise 2 is not true and arguments based on false premises cannot be sound, even if they’re valid.
Valid, sound, invalid but sound?
1) All republicans are conservative
All conservatives voted for McCain
Therefore, all republicans voted for McCain
2) All democrats are liberal
Some liberals voted for Obama
Therefore some democrats voted for Obama
1) valid, but not sound
Neither premise is true…
2) Invalid and not sound
What is the Atmosphere Effect?
This is an error of syllogism.
Consistency in premises and conclusion influence judgments of validity
ex:
Some of the men are tired
Some tired people are women, Therefore
some of the men are women
What is Belief Bias? What type of error is this?
This is a memory error.
Claiming a syllogism is valid because YOU believe the conclusion is true.
The following is INVALID. The truth of the conclusion is only PART of the effective reasoning.
ex:
All democrats are liberal
Some liberals voted for Obama
Therefore some democrats voted for Obama
Gerken’s Quiz:
All people taking this quiz are students in my cognitive class All students in my cognitive class can evaluate the validity of syllogisms Therefore, all the students taking this quiz can evaluate this syllogism
The syllogism above is
A) sound
B) valid but not sound
C) invalid
My hope is that the correct answer is now A. Previous experience teaching this material tells me that the second premise may not be true and thus the correct answer would be B. If you aren’t getting how my hypothetical responses map onto my hopes versus past experience, you will want to practice more.
All infants are selfish.
All selfish people are manipulative.
Therefore, all infants are manipulative.
Does this syllogism follow the form of Aristotle’s perfect syllogism?
a. yes
A is B
B is C
Therefore, A is C
All infants are selfish.
All selfish people are manipulative.
Therefore, all infants are manipulative.
Now evaluate this syllogism
Select one:
a. invalid
b. valid but not sound
c. sound
d. invalid but sound
c. sound
Some aliens are grays
Some grays are evil
Therefore some aliens are evil
What is the likely source of the error for someone mistakenly claiming this syllogism is valid?
a. alien mind control
b. confirmation bias
c. belief bias
d. atmosphere effect
d. atmosphere effect
Some aliens are grays
Some grays are evil
Therefore some aliens are evil
Evaluate this syllogism.
Select one:
a. valid but not sound
b. invalid and sound
c. invalid
d. sound
c. invalid
Conditional Syllogism is often referred to as what?
What type of argument is it? *major and minor premise
Often referred to as hypothetical syllogisms.
These are two-premise arguments.
The major premise is a conditional and the minor premise includes either the antecedent or the consequent.
What type of statement is a Conditional?
*Antecedent and Consequent
If P, then Q.
If I study, then I will get an A.
Antecedent: If
Consequent: Then I will get an A
For any given conditional, there are 4 types of evidence that can be gathered and inferred on.
1st evidence: Affirming the Antecedent.
Give an example of Affirming the Antecedent for the following:
“If I study, I will get an ‘A’”
Is this valid or invalid?
-I studied
For any given conditional, there are 4 types of evidence that can be gathered and inferred on.
1st evidence: Denying the Antecedent.
Give an example of Denying the Antecedent for the following:
“If I study, I will get an ‘A’”
Is this valid or invalid?
- I did not study
- Therefore I will not get an ‘A’
The second possible piece of evidence is that “I did not study.” This is called denying the antecedent because we are saying the antecedent did not occur.
The conclusion one would be tempted to make is “I will not get an A.” “I will not get an A” doesn’t necessarily follow from the evidence.
Invalid.
For any given conditional, there are 4 types of evidence that can be gathered and inferred on.
1st evidence: Denying the Consequent.
Give an example of Denying the Consequent for the following:
“If I study, I will get an ‘A’”
Is this valid or invalid?
- I did not get an ‘A’
- Therefore, I did not study
This states that the Consequent did not occur.
The inference one makes is:
Therefore I did not study.
Valid.
Which of the following leads to valid statements?
a. Evidence that affirms antecedents b. Evidence that denies the antecedents c. Evidence that denies the consequents d. Affirms the consequents
Affirm antecedents and Deny consequents is Valid.
For any given conditional, there are 4 types of evidence that can be gathered and inferred on.
1st evidence: Affirming the Consequent.
Give an example of Affirming the Consequent for the following:
“If I study, I will get an ‘A’”
Is this valid or invalid?
“I got an A.” One would want to conclude that “Therefore, I studied.”
This evidence is called affirming the consequent because we are saying the consequent did in fact occur.
It is not true that because I got an A I studied – q, therefore p. We went over reasons other than studying why one may have gotten an A.
Invalid.
What does Modus Ponens refer to?
Modus ponens for affirming the antecedent leading to Valid inference
What does Modus Tollen refer to?
Modus tollens for denying the consequent leading to Valid inference
Which one are people better at making inferences on?
-Modus Ponens or Modus Tellos?
Modus Ponens
What is a confirmation bias?
If an author claimed a theory was correct because the data confirmed their theory. Should we accept the conclusion?
What type of conditional mistake do we make when we do accept that conclusion?
We have accepted the consequent (confirmatory evidence) even though it is an invalid inference.
If Theory X is true, then Y should happen.
Y happens, therefore?
No conclusion follows– accepting Theory X would be the fallacy of affirming the consequent
Science should falsify theories via modus tollens (looking for negative evidence)
If a tree falls in an empty forest, then it doesn’t make a sound.
Pick the two pieces of evidence and conclusions that represent valid inferences.
Select one or more: a. A falling tree made a sound, therefore it did not fall in an empty forest. b. A falling tree didn't make a sound, therefore it fell in an empty forest. c. A tree fell in an empty forest, therefore it did not make a sound. d. A tree fell in a populated forest, therefore it did make a sound.
b. A falling tree didn’t make a sound,
therefore it fell in an empty forest.
c. A tree fell in an empty forest,
therefore it did not make a sound.
If theory Q is correct, then behavior G will be observed.
Again, pick the two conclusions that are valid inferences.
Select one or more: a. Behavior G was observed, therefore theory Q is correct. b. Theory Q is correct, therefore behavior G was observed. c. Theory Q is incorrect, therefore behavior G was not observed. d. Behavior G was not observed, therefore theory Q is not correct.
b. Theory Q is correct,
therefore behavior G was observed.
d. Behavior G was not observed,
therefore theory Q is not correct.
If fuzzy-trace theory is correct, then false memories will be more persistant than true memories.
This is a real theory and a real prediction based on that theory. As we discussed in class I don’t want to focus on real-world truths or possibilties with the conditionals except in this case of hypothesis testing. Given the conditional (hypothesis) above, you as a scientist would be looking for onlyone type of evidence and valid conclusion because the other is not observable.
Pick the ONE piece of evidence with it’s associated valid conclusion.
Select one:
a. False memories are not more persistant than true memories, therefore fuzzy-trace theory is incorrect.
b. Fuzzy-trace theory is incorrect, therefore false memories are not more persistant than true memories.
c. False memories are more persistant than true memories, therefore fuzzy-trace theory is correct.
d. Fuzzy-trace theory is correct, therefore false memories are more persistant than true memories.
d. False memories are not more persistant than true memories, therefore fuzzy-trace theory is incorrect.
* Yes, we can’t observe the theory but we can see the effect of a possible cause. In actuality it should be known that the empirical data is consistent with fuzzy-trace theory and false memories appear to be more persistent than true memories. Of course there are several other alternate theories that could also explain this phenomenon so we wouldn’t claim FTT is proven correct.
If I eat less meat, then my diet will help combat global warming.
Which part of the preceding conditional is the antecedent?
Select one:
a. I eat less meat
b. Combat global meat warming
c. I will help combat global warming
d. Less global combat
a. I eat less meat
If I eat less meat, then my diet will help combat global warming.
Which choice represents the modus tollens?
Select one:
a. I eat less meat, therefore my diet is helping combat global warming.
b. I am not eating less meat, therefore my diet is contributing to global warming.
c. My diet is helping combat global warming, therefore I am eating less meat.
d. My diet does not help combat global warming, therefore I am not eating less meat.
d. My diet does not help combat global warming, therefore I am not eating less meat.
Anytime we make predicitons, are we using deductive or inductive reasoning?
Inductive… we induce, not deduce.
What is heuristics?
the rule of thumb, and answers ppl are likely to provide but aren’t 100% true
What is Availability heuristics?
Easily remembered events are judged as more possible… Things that become immediately available are easier to remember.
like “would the letter r be more common in beginning of words, or the 3rd letter of a word?”
It’s 3rd letter, but most say 1st.
How is illusory correlation related to stereotypes?
We largely correlate things to each other, and usually focus on the negative.
Someone might see a gay character on tv and automatically assume all gays are effeminate- but it’s because they haven’t seen the rest or choose to selective attention to the stereotypical behavior makes these behaviors more “available”.
What is representational heuristics? What is an example?
It states the probability that A is a member of class B is determined by how close A resembles B.
“Robert wears glasses, speaks softly, and reads a lot- is he a librarian or farmer?”
What is the conjunction rule?
The probability of A and B cannot be higher than A or B alone… statistically, it’s small.
How does expected emotion affect risk taking?
People who predict how bad they feel have a lot to do with decision making. This is a powerful predictor for risk aversion.
What is risk aversion?
Tendency to avoid risks.
A question is worded or stated differently, but the results are exactly the same. What type of effect could have influenced someone’s decision to choose one or the other?
The framing effect.
Syllogisms are inductive or deductive?
Deductive. We determine whether a conclusion logically follows it’s premises.
T or False. In inductive reasoning, conclusions follow not from logically constructed syllogisms but from evidence.
True.
Which reasoning plays a bigger role in our lives and why?
Inductive, because we tend to make predictions based on past observations.
Wason’s number sequence task confirmed what about our bias?
Confirmation bias- we seek information to conform to the hypothesis.
Utilily approach to decision making states what?
That we are generally rational, so when we have all relevant information, we make a decision- just not always the right ones.
