Download Critical Thinking Exam Questions and Answers: Key Concepts and more Exams Creative Thinking in PDF only on Docsity!
WGU D265 Critical Thinking Exam Questions
and Answers | latest Update
basic components of arguments - ✅✅The basic components of an argument in critical thinking are: a claim (or conclusion), premises (reasons or evidence supporting the claim), and a warrant (the logical connection between the premises and the claim); essentially, what you are arguing for, the reasons why you believe it, and the reasoning that links them together. Breakdown of each component: Claim/conclusion: The main point or statement that the argument is trying to prove, often considered the conclusion of the argument. Premises: Statements that provide evidence or reasons to support the claim, acting as the foundation for the argument. Warrant: The underlying assumption or logical connection that explains how the premises lead to the conclusion. Key points to remember: Evaluating an argument: When critically analyzing an argument, you should assess whether the premises are strong, the evidence is reliable, and the warrant is logical and valid. Implicit elements: Sometimes, warrants may not be explicitly stated but are implied within the argument. Counterarguments: A well-rounded argument also considers potential counterarguments and addresses opposing viewpoints.
premises and conclusions in crtitical thinking - ✅✅In critical thinking, "premises" are the statements or evidence used to support a conclusion, while the "conclusion" is the main point or claim that is being argued for, which is derived from the presented premises; essentially, premises act as the foundation for the conclusion to be logically reached. Key points about premises and conclusions: Function: Premises provide reasons or facts to justify the conclusion, while the conclusion is the statement that is being argued for based on those premises. Logical relationship: If the premises are true, then the conclusion should logically follow as true. Identifying indicators: Words like "because," "since," and "for" often indicate the start of a premise, while "therefore," "thus," and "so" often signal the conclusion. Example: Premise 1: All dogs are mammals. Premise 2: Fido is a dog. Conclusion: Therefore, Fido is a mammal. formal and informal fallacies in critical thinking - ✅✅In critical thinking, a "formal fallacy" refers to an error in reasoning that occurs due to a flawed structure within the argument itself, regardless of the truth of the premises, while an "informal fallacy" is a flawed argument that arises from the content or wording of the premises, often involving irrelevant or misleading information, rather than a structural problem in the logic itself. Key Differences: Focus on Structure:
Appeal to ignorance: Claiming something is true because there is no evidence to disprove it Validity or Strength of Arguments in critical thinking - ✅✅In critical thinking, (for deductive)"validity" refers to the logical structure of an argument, meaning whether the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, regardless of whether the premises are true or not; while "strength" (for inductive)refers to how well the evidence supports the conclusion, taking into account the truth and relevance of the premises to the argument at hand. Key points to remember: Validity: An argument is considered "valid" if, assuming the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. Validity focuses solely on the logical form of the argument, not the actual truth of the premises. A valid argument can still have a false conclusion if one or more premises are false. Strength: A "strong" argument has premises that are highly relevant and provide substantial evidence to support the conclusion. Strength considers both the logical structure and the factual accuracy of the premises. A strong argument is more likely to persuade someone because it provides compelling reasons to believe the conclusion. Example: Valid but not strong argument: "All birds can fly. A penguin is a bird. Therefore, a penguin can fly." This argument is logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
However, it is not strong because the premise "all birds can fly" is factually incorrect, making the argument weak overall. Strong argument: "Smoking has been scientifically proven to increase the risk of lung cancer. Therefore, smoking is harmful to your health." This argument is both valid and strong because the premise is well-supported by evidence and directly leads to the conclusion. Examples: Deductive reasoning From General to Specific - ✅✅If it is raining, the ground will be wet. It is raining outside. Therefore, the ground is wet. To legally drive, a person must have a valid driver's license. Emma is driving a car. Therefore, Emma must have a valid driver's license. To earn a bachelor's degree, a student must have 120 credits. Sally has 130 credits. Therefore, Sally has a bachelor's degree. Each of these follows the general rule → specific case → logical conclusion structure of deductive reasoning. Inductive Reasoning: From Specific to General - ✅✅Inductive reasoning moves in the opposite direction—it begins with specific observations and uses them to form a general conclusion. By identifying patterns, we infer a broader principle that explains the data. However, unlike deduction, induction does not prove a theory—it only suggests a likely (or probable) explanation. Alternative explanations may exist, and additional evidence is needed to confirm the conclusion. The key to inductive reasoning is ensuring that the conclusion logically explains the data. A conclusion that ignores relevant evidence or contradicts observations would not be logically sound.
The GDP of Canada is either $3 trillion or $12 trillion.) Complex propositions are composed of multiple simple propositions. complex propositions are true or false based on whether the simple propositions that make them up are true or false and how they are connected. Define "non-proposition" - ✅✅Sentences that are not statements about matters of fact (or fiction). They do not make a claim that can be true or false. a "non-proposition" refers to a statement that cannot be definitively categorized as true or false, typically because it is a question, command, exclamation, or expression of opinion rather than a factual claim; essentially, it is a statement that does not present a proposition that can be evaluated for truth value. Key points about non-propositions: Examples: "Where are the keys?" (a question), "Close the door!" (a command), "Wow, that was amazing!" (an exclamation). Not a statement of fact: Unlike a proposition, a non-proposition does not assert a specific fact that can be verified as true or false. Importance in critical thinking: Recognizing non-propositions is crucial for evaluating arguments because you need to identify statements that actually make claims that can be assessed for validity. Invalidity: - ✅✅If an argument is not valid, it is called invalid. Example: Premise 1: Some dogs are animals.
Premise 2: Some cats are animals. Conclusion: Therefore, some dogs are cats. This argument is invalid. Unsoundness: - ✅✅If an argument is valid but has at least one false premise, it is unsound. Example: Premise 1: All birds can fly. Premise 2: Penguins are birds. Conclusion: Therefore, penguins can fly. This argument is valid (the conclusion follows logically from the premises), but unsound because the premise "All birds can fly" is false. ad hominem fallacy - ✅✅You start attacking the person rather than the argument (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution. Ad hominem means "against the man," and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy. This approach can act as a method of discrediting an opponent or simply deflecting or avoiding the actual topic of discussion. Modus Ponens - ✅✅If A, then B. A. So, B.
Use Modus Ponens to build strong logical arguments by clearly stating a conditional statement and then providing evidence to support the antecedent, leading to a valid conclusion. Important Considerations: Truth of Premises: While Modus Ponens is a valid form of reasoning, it only guarantees a true conclusion if the premises are also true. Distinguishing from Fallacies: Be careful not to confuse Modus Ponens with "affirming the consequent" which is a logical fallac cogency - ✅✅A strong inductive argument in which all the premises are actually true. Cogent thinking is a type of critical reasoning that uses strong arguments with true premises to support a conclusion. Cogent arguments are convincing and easy to understand. Characteristics of cogent thinking True premises: The premises of a cogent argument are true or believable. Strong argument: The premises of a cogent argument increase the likelihood of the conclusion. Non-deductive: Cogent arguments are inductive arguments that establish probable support for the conclusion. Valid reasoning: Cogent reasoning includes all relevant information and is correct. Examples of cogent thinking "Most birds can fly. Tweety is a bird. Therefore, Tweety can probably fly". "Patrick was born in North America and Patrick wasn't born in Mexico. It's quite probable that Patrick was born in the USA".
Using cogent thinking Doctors and nurses use cogent thinking when diagnosing patients. They consider a patient's symptoms and compare them to known symptoms of various conditions. A cogent argument is by definition non-deductive, which means that the premises are intended to establish probable (but not conclusive) support for the conclusion. Furthermore, a cogent argument is strong, so the premises, if they were true, would succeed in providing probable support for the conclusion. Cherry-picking the evidence - ✅✅seeking and accepting only the evidence that supports what we already think and what we want to think The cherrypicking fallacy is the tendency to choose evidence that supports an argument while ignoring that which disputes it The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy is one way to refer to this sorta thing. anchoring bias - ✅✅This causes people to put too much weight on the first part of the information we are currently receiving. To reduce its influence, try to get larger sets of more subjective data and not rely too much on personal anchors critical thinking - ✅✅the ability to think clearly, rationally, and independently "In any event, our purpose is to better understand the relevant issues so that we may make an informed decision on the topic." Let's go get lunch - ✅✅non proposition
false, making it a clear claim that can be debated and analyzed based on evidence and reasoning. Key points about this proposition: Debatable: Whether lunch is the most important meal is a subject of discussion, with many people arguing for the importance of breakfast or a balanced diet throughout the day. Requires analysis: To support or refute this proposition, one would need to consider factors like nutritional needs, energy levels throughout the day, and individual dietary requirements. Can be argued from different perspectives: Some might argue that lunch is crucial for maintaining focus and productivity during the afternoon, while others might prioritize the nutrient intake from breakfast to kickstart the day. Bad argument premise - ✅✅is one where the premises fail to support the conclusion Good argument premise - ✅✅the premises do support the conclusion Deduction (deductive reasoning) - ✅✅arguments where the premises guarantee the conclusion an argument where the premise makes the conclusion probable - ✅✅Induction
Arguments where the best available explanation is automatically chosen to be the answer - ✅✅Abduction Invalid argument structure - ✅✅is an argument where the premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion A valid argument structure - ✅✅is an argument structure where the premises guarantee the conclusion Soundness/Sound Argument - ✅✅is an argument that is valid and has true premises unsound argument - ✅✅a deductive argument that is invalid, has one or more false premises, or both is one of the properties of an arguments structure. it indicates that it is true whether you agree with it or not. - ✅✅Validity All true premises + Valid Structure = - ✅✅Sound Argument How is truth connected to propositions? - ✅✅truth is a property of propositions in arguments that can be true or false When reflecting on an argument what is the difference between a valid and invalid argument - ✅✅valid arguments are sound and invalid arguments can fall apart easily
Appeal to Authority - ✅✅A fallacy in which a speaker or writer seeks to persuade not by giving evidence but by appealing to the respect people have for a famous person or institution. Apeal to force - ✅✅being forceful in your argument If you don't believe this then you will suffer the consequences appeal to consequences fallacy - ✅✅when one appeals to the bad (or good) consequences of accepting a claim as a reason to reject (or accept) it as true. Fallacy of Equivocation - ✅✅Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings. potential fallacious exploitation - ✅✅A sneaky debater can manipulate the subtitles of meaning to convince people of things that aren't true conjoint support - ✅✅When a premise doesn't seem to support the conclusion without the help of the other premises. Syllogism - ✅✅a logical structure that uses the major premise and minor premise to reach a necessary conclusion immediate inference - ✅✅1 premise and 1 conclusion
Indirect support - ✅✅a premise can offer indirect support for the main conclusion of the argument. confirmation bias - ✅✅a tendency to search for information that supports our preconceptions and to ignore or distort contradictory evidence. In other words, "seeking or interpreting evidence in ways that are preferential to existing beliefs, expectations, or hypotheses" representativeness heuristic - ✅✅a mental shortcut by wich people classify something according to how similar it is to a typical case. It rellies on categories and protoypes that readily come into mind. Can draw up stereotypes and make judgements on other people. availability bias - ✅✅the tendency for people to base their judgments on information that is readily available to them System 1 thinking - ✅✅Automatic, fast, little or no effort, no sense of voluntary control System 2 thinking - ✅✅slow and analytical Hominem Fallacy - ✅✅an attack on the person instead of on the person's arguments Genetic Fallacy - ✅✅Arguments that state that an idea should be discounted simply because of its source or origin.
Hasty Generalization - ✅✅a fallacy in which a speaker jumps to a general conclusion on the basis of insufficient evidence Fallacy of False Dichotomy - ✅✅Assumes that only two possibilities exist when in fact more than two exist Independent support - ✅✅When each premise seems like its an argument for the conclusion on its own. A premise can offer indirect support for the main conclusion of the argument by supporting a premise that directly supports the conclusion. Mapping Independent Support - ✅✅Without the other conjoint premises, it would be unclear why one conjoint premise should be taken as a reason for accepting the conclusion. Using Downward Braces - ✅✅If there are more than one conclusion for any given inference Conjoint Example - ✅✅deductive arguments are more often than not conjoint support. this is just a rough and ready rule, but the way standard deductive arguments work is that the premises are all necessary fir the inference to demonstrate the conclusion Example:
- Government mandates for zero-emission vehicles won't work because (2) only electric cars qualify as zero-emission vehicles, and (3) electric cars won't sell. (4)
They are too expensive, (5) their range of operation is too limited, and (6) recharging facilities are not generally available. While there are many places that we could go to lunch, given that you are a vegetarian, we should go to that caffe on the corner - ✅✅proposition Make sure you get enough to eat - ✅✅non proposition Is a command define simple proposition - ✅✅Have no internal logical structure, simply true or false on their own define complex proposition - ✅✅Have internal logical structure, compoed of simple proposition I'm hungry and I want to go to lunch/ complex proposition - ✅✅I am hungry- I want to go to lunch / simple proposition You are not hungry- but you should come to lunch with me. - ✅✅complex proposition but You are not hungry - You should come to lunch with me. - ✅✅simple propositions If it cost too much, then I will not buy it. - ✅✅complex proposition
