D265 Critical Thinking (STUDY THIS ONE!)

D265 Critical Thinking (STUDY THIS ONE!)

• studiers today 5.0 (10 reviews)

Students also studied Terms in this set (75) Western Governors UniversityD 333 Save

Critical Thinking: Reason and Eviden...

124 terms MsDaniLaniPreview

WGU D265 Critical Thinking: Reason...

43 terms Atraniv_98Preview

D265 EXAM

243 terms gabbyynoyola2000 Preview

D265 E

243 term idkl Practice questions for this set Learn1 / 7Study using Learn If A, then B.B is not the case.Therefore , A is not the case either. = VALID

Example:

If I'm in Rome (A), then I'm in Italy (B).I am not in Rome in Italy (B).Therefore, I am not in Rome (A).Choose an answer 1PROPOSITIONS2Modus Tollens

3PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY4CONCLUSION INDICATORS

Don't know?

PROPOSITIONSAre statements that can be true or false NON-PROPOSITONSAre sentences that are not statements about matters of fact or fiction. They do not make a claim that can be true or false.SIMPLE PROPOSITIONSHave no internal logic structure, meaning whether they are true or false does not depend on whether a part of them is true or false. They are simply true or false on

their own. (Example: Harry Potter wears glasses. The sky is blue.)

COMPLEX PROPOSITIONSHave internal logic structure, meaning they are composed of simple propositions.Whether they are true or false depends on whether their parts are true or false.(Example: The sky is blue, but it does not look blue to me right now. The cat ate the food, but he did not like it. The GDP of Canada is either $3 trillion or $12 trillion.) CONCLUSION INDICATORSTHEREORE, IT FOLLOWS THAT, AS A RESULT, THUS, & CONSEQUENTLY.

Acronym to remember:

ACT IT

As a result Consequently Therefore It follows that Thus PREMISE INDICATORSBECAUSE, FOR, GIVEN THAT, AS, SINCE, AS INDICATED BY & WHEREAS.

Acronym to remember:

FAB SWAG

For As Because Since Whereas As indicated by Given that DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTSArguments where the premises guarantee or necessitate the conclusion.-mathematical arguments, logical arguments, arguments from definition.INDUCTION ARGUMENTSArguments where the premises make the conclusion probable.-analogies, authority, causal inferences, extrapolations, etc.

INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION OR

ABDUCTION

Arguments where the best available explanation is chosen as the correct explanation.

FORMAL FALLACYConcerns the structure of an argument INFORMAL FALLACYConcerns the informational content of an argument A FORMAL FALLACY IS A TYPE OFBad Argument Structure PRINCIPLE OF CHARITYThe principle of charity suggests we should try to understand ideas before criticizing them.CONFIRMATION BIASthe tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.COGNITIVE BIASa systematic thought process caused by the tendency of the human brain to simplify information processing through a filter of personal experience and preferences.Heuristicare practical rules of thumb that manifest as mental shortcuts in judgment and decision-making.Hasty generalization fallacy (Weak induction)The hasty generalization fallacy is sometimes called the over-generalization fallacy. It is basically making a claim based on evidence that it just too small.Essentially, you can't make a claim and say that something is true if you have only an example or two as evidence.appeal to ignorance fallacy (Weak induction)This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it.Slippery slope fallacy (Weak induction)A slippery slope fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim about a series of events that would lead to one major event, usually a bad event. In this fallacy, a person makes a claim that one event leads to another event and so on until we come to some awful conclusion.post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (Weak induction) from the Latin for "after this, because of this;" assumes that because one event happened after another, then the preceding event caused the event that followed Shifting the burden of proof fallacy ( Fallacy of Presumption) Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. EX: One example of the burden of proof fallacy is someone who claims that ghosts exists, but doesn't prove this, and instead shifts the burden of proof to others, by stating that anyone who disagrees should prove ghosts don't exist.Confirmation biasConfirmation bias is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their existing beliefs or hypotheses. Confirmation bias happens when a person gives more weight to evidence that confirms their beliefs and undervalues evidence that could disprove it.

Anchoring / Adjustment biasAnchoring bias is a cognitive bias that causes us to rely too heavily on the first piece of information we are given about a topic. When we are setting plans or making estimates about something, we interpret newer information from the reference point of our anchor, instead of seeing it objectively.selection biasA polling error in which the sample is not representative of the population being studied, so that some opinions are over- or underrepresented sound argumentSoundness: An argument is sound if it meets these two criteria: (1) It is valid. (2) Its premises are true.valid argumentA valid argument is an argument in which the conclusion must be true whenever the hypotheses are true. EX: "It rains only if I carry an umbrella" can be rewritten as "If it rains, then I carry an umbrella." "All citizens of Egypt speak Arabic." can be rewritten as "If someone is a citizen of Egypt, then they speak Arabic." unsound argumentAn unsound argument is either an invalid argument or a valid argument with at least one false premise. EX: All dogs are mammals. Therefore, dogs are cows. The above argument contains true premises, but it is invalid since the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises. Therefore, it is also an unsound argument.strong argumentA strong argument is a non-deductive argument that succeeds in providing probable, but not conclusive, logical support for its conclusion.cogent argumentA cogent argument is an inductive argument that is both strong and all of its premises are true.uncogent argumentAn uncogent argument is an inductive argument that is either weak or has at least one false premise.