Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

CRITICAL THINKING > Test #1 > Flashcards

Test #1 Flashcards

(71 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Critical Thinking

A

System evaluation of beliefs by rational standards

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Arguments

A

Group of statements, support conclusion. String of assertions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Premise

A

Statement given in support of conclusion in argument

For, since, because

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Conclusion

A

Statement that premises support in argument

So, therefore, thus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Inference

A

Process of moving from premises to conclusion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Explanation

A

Statements intended to tell why/how something is the case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Assertion

A

Truth-apt
Express proposition= way world MAY be
Building blocks of arguments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Conditional proposition

A

If p then q

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Negation

A

Not p

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Conjunction

A

P and Q

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Disjunction

A

P or Q

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Sentence types

A

Statements and assertions
Questions
Imperatives and commands
Exclamations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

When 2 premises are true

A

Conclusion follows necessarily

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Deductive arguments

A

Argument intended to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion
Truth preserving

Valid or invalid

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Validity

A

Follows formal logic, succeeds in providing conclusive support for conclusion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Soundedness

A

True premises and valid logic

Guarantees truth of conclusion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Inductive argument

A

An argument in which premises are intended to provide probable
Not truth preserving

Generalize in basis of our experience

Strong

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Abductive argument

A

Inference to best explanation (IBE)

Observation premise and then consider best explanation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Strong

A

Succeeds in providing probable, but not conclusive

Support for its conclusion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Weak

A

An inductive argument that fails to provide strong support for its conclusion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Cogent

A

Strong inductive argument with all true premises

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Explanation vs argument

A

Why x is the case vs. Whether X is the case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Why use inductive and abductive reasoning?

A

Ampliative forms of reasoning. Add new info

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Antecedent

A

First part of conditional statement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Consequent
Second part of conditional statement
26
Modus ponens
Affirming the antecedent If p then q P Therefore q
27
Modus tollens
Denying the consequent If p then q Not q Therefore not p
28
Hypothetical syllogism
Valid argument made up of three hypothetical/conditional statements If p then q If q then r Therefore is p then r
29
Syllogism
deductive arguments made up of three statements: 2 premises and 1 conclusion
30
Two types of valid
Denying antecedents | Affirming consequent
31
Disjunctive syllogism
Either p or q Not p Therefore q
32
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Use the fact that Y followed X to establish that X caused Y
33
Diagramming arguments
``` Premises boxed Conclusion circled Arrows to indicate support Sub conclusion as box and circle Underline premises that lead to conclusion ```
34
Independent premise
Doesn’t rely on support of other premises
35
Dependent premise
Depends on other premises
36
Motivated belief
Belief formed bc resonates with our desires
37
Obstacles to human reasoning
Motivated belief Social pressures Optimism bias Lousy mental design
38
What to do to avoid self interest issues
Outsourcing Critical conversations Engineering environment
39
Descriptive
Describe the way the world is
40
Evaluative
say something about what’s valuable
41
Normative
Say what SHOULD be
42
Nihilism
Say there aren’t facts so don’t believe
43
Subjective realism
Truth depends solely on what someone believes Self defeating if generalized Each of us would be infallible
44
Skepticism
No knowledge about domain
45
Social relativism
View that truth is relative to societies
46
Philosophical skepticism
Doctrine that we know much less than we think we do
47
Conflicting claims
If conflicts with claim we accept | Reason to doubt
48
Background information
Large collection of well supported beliefs that we rely on- if claim conflicts with background then reason to doubt
49
Expert
Someone more knowledgeable in area than most If claim conflict then reason to doubt If experts conflict then suspend judgement
50
Personal experience
Reasonable to accept evidence of personal experience if no reason to doubt
51
Common mistakes when evaluating claims
1. Resisting contrary evidence 2. Looking for confirming evidence 3. Preferring available evidence
52
Fallacies
Argument form that is both common and defective Recurring mistake in reasoning 2 types
53
2 types of fallacies
1. Irrelevant premises | 2. Unacceptable premises
54
Genetic fallacy
Irrelevant premises Arg is true or false solely based on its origin, unreliable source
55
Ad hominem
Irrelevant premises Appeal to person Reject claim by criticizing person who makes it Mentions and attacks origins
56
Tu quoque
Type of ad hominem Irrelevant premises Accused speaker of hypocrisy, reject claim on that basis
57
Fallacy of composition
Irrelevant premises | Arguing what’s true of parts is true of whole
58
Fallacy of division
Irrelevant premises | Arguing what’s true of whole is true of parts
59
Fallacy of equivocation
Irrelevant premises | Use word multiple times in different senses
60
Appeal to popularity/common practice
Irrelevant premises | Arguing claim must be true because substantial # of people believe it, what people generally do
61
Appeal to tradition
Irrelevant premises | Argument claims must be true because it’s part of tradition
62
Appeal to ignorance
Irrelevant premises Lack of evidence proves something Thinking claim true bc not shown false or argue claim false bc not proven true
63
Burden of proof
Weight of evidence/argument required by one side in disagreement
64
Appeal of emotion
Irrelevant premises | Fallacy of using emotions in place of relevant reasons as premises
65
Red herring
Irrelevant premises | Deliberately raising irrelevant issue/premise to push conclusion
66
Straw man
Irrelevant premises | Distorting, weakening, oversimplying someone’s position so it can be more easily attacked
67
Begging the question
Unacceptable premises Establish conclusion by using conclusion as premise
68
False dilemma
Unacceptable premises Asserting there are only two options or options aren’t mutually exclusive
69
Slippery slope
Unacceptable premises Arguing without reason that taking particular step will cause sequence of steps
70
Hasty generalization
Unacceptable premises Drawing conclusion about target group on too smalll sample
71
Faulty analogy
Unacceptable premises Analogy doesn’t fit the context

CRITICAL THINKING (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions