Reasoning

Question 1

Affirmation of the consequent

Answer 1

A logical fallacy: it asserts that if a conditional statement is true and if the consequent is true, then the antecedent must also be true (i.e., given that if A, then B is true and that B is true, it is a fallacy to conclude that A must be true)

Question 2

Antecedent

Answer 2

The condition of a conditional statement; that is, the A in If A, then B.

Question 3

Atmosphere hypothesis

Answer 3

The proposal that the logical quantifiers used in the premises of a categorical syllogism create an ‘atmosphere’ that predisposes participants to accept conclusions having the same quantifiers.

Question 4

Attribute identification

Answer 4

Determining which attributes are relevant to the formation of a hypothesis.

Question 5

Categorical syllogism

Answer 5

A syllogism in which logical quantifiers relate categories A to B in one premise, relate B to C in the other premise, and relate A to C in the conclusion.

Question 6

Conditional statement

Answer 6

An assertion that, if an antecedent is true, then a consequent must be true: a statement of the form if A, then B.

Question 7

Confirmation bias

Answer 7

When trying to determine whether a hypothesis is correct, the tendency to look only at evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis.

Question 8

Consequent

Answer 8

The result of a conditional statement; the B in if A, then B.

Question 9

Deductive reasoning

Answer 9

Reasoning in which the conclusions follow with certainty from the premises.

Question 10

Denial of the antecedent

Answer 10

A logical fallacy: it asserts that, if a conditional statement is true and if the antecedent is false, then the consequent must also be false (i.e., given that if A, then B is true and that A is false, it is a fallacy to conclude that B must be false).

Question 11

Inductive reasoning

Answer 11

Reasoning in which the conclusions follow only probabilistically from the premises.

Question 12

Logical quantifiers

Answer 12

Elements such as ‘all, no, some’, and ‘some…not’ that appear in statements like All A are B and Some C are not D.

Question 13

Mental model theory

Answer 13

The theory that participants judge the validity of a syllogism by imagining a world that satisfies the premises and seeing whether the conclusion is satisfied in that world.

Question 14

Modus ponens

Answer 14

A rule of logic: if a conditional statement is true and if its antecedent is true, then its consequent must be true (i.e., if the conditional statement if A, then B is true, and if the antecedent A is true, we can infer that the consequent B is true).

Question 15

Modus tollens

Answer 15

A rule of logic: if a conditional statement is true and if its consequent is false, then its antecedent must be false (i.e., if the conditional statement if A, then B is true, and if the consequent B is false, we can infer that the antecedent A is false).

Question 16

Particular statements

Answer 16

Statements - often involving the logical quantifiers ‘some’ and ‘some…not’ - that logicians interpret as being true about at least some members of a category.

Question 17

Permission schema

Answer 17

An interpretation of a conditional statement in which the antecedent specifies the situations in which the consequent is permitted.

Question 18

Rule learning

Answer 18

Determining what kind of rule (conjunctive, disjunctive, or relational) connects the features when forming a hypothesis.

Question 19

Syllogisms

Answer 19

Logical arguments consisting of two premises and a conclusion.

Question 20

Type 1 processes

Answer 20

Rapid and automatic processes, relying on associations between situations and actions.

Question 21

Type 2 processes

Answer 21

Slow and deliberative processes that may follow normative prescriptions.

Question 22

Universal statements

Answer 22

Statements - often involving logical quantifiers such as ‘all and none’ - that logicians interpret as blanket claims with no exceptions.

Question 23

Wason selection task

Answer 23

A task in which participants must decide which of four cards need to be turned over to check the validity of a conditional statement; the cards represent the four possibilities of antecedent and consequent of the conditional being true or false.