Critical Thinking As

Front 1

Reason

Back 1

claims given to support something

Front 2

Main conclusion

Back 2

the claim you are being persuded to believe

Front 3

Intermediate conclusion

Back 3

conclusion reached before main conclusion

Front 4

Counter assertion

Back 4

when a claim is made against an argument without reasons to support it

Front 5

Counter argument

Back 5

when a conclusion plus reasons are given that go against the argument

Front 6

Evidence

Back 6

reasearched, often statistical examples, used to prove a point

Front 7

Example

Back 7

an illustration which supports a reason

Front 8

Hypothetical reasoning

Back 8

based on what may happen in the future "If this happen, then this will happen"

Front 9

Assumptions

Back 9

the unsaid part of an arugument that needs to be true for an argument to work effectively

Front 10

Reason indicators

Back 10

since, because, for, as is implied by, for this reason

Front 11

Conclusion indicators

Back 11

therefore, as a result of, we conclude, it follows

Front 12

Analogies

Back 12

claims that are a number of significant parts of comparrsion between two different things

Front 13

Principles

Back 13

statement which makes a claim about how things should be

Front 14

Slippery slope

Back 14

injustified claim that negative consuequences will follow if something bad is allowed to happen

Front 15

Post hoc

Back 15

assumes that if an event follows 'after this' it was caused by this

Front 16

Circular argument

Back 16

conclusion repeats the reasons

Front 17

Restricting the options

Back 17

limited number of possibilities which listener not allowed to chose, others options not mentioned

Front 18

Tu Quoque

Back 18

deflecting criticsm by accusing the critic of being guilty of the same thing (two wrongs don't make a right)

Front 19

Confusing necessary and sufficnet conditions

Back 19

necessary conditions is vital for something else to happen. Sufficent conditions gaurenteers next stop can follow

Front 20

Hasty Generalisation

Back 20

something claimed about a large group of people based on little evidence

Front 21

Straw Man

Back 21

argument grossly exaggerated or simplified to make it easier to knock down

Front 22

Ad Hominen

Back 22

criticising the person putting forward the argument, not the argument itself

Front 23

Conflation

Back 23

using two different terms as if they were exactly the same, the conclusion then presented using only one of the concepts

Front 24

Simplyfying casual relationships

Back 24

one event was caused by another without providing sufficent evidence

Front 25

Restricting the options

Back 25

limited number of possibilities which listener not allowed to chose, others options not mentioned

Front 26

Tu Quoque

Back 26

deflecting criticsm by accusing the critic of being guilty of the same thing (two wrongs don't make a right)

Front 27

Confusing necessary and sufficnet conditions

Back 27

necessary conditions is vital for something else to happen. Sufficent conditions gaurenteers next stop can follow

Front 28

Hasty Generalisation

Back 28

something claimed about a large group of people based on little evidence

Front 29

Straw Man

Back 29

argument grossly exaggerated or simplified to make it easier to knock down

Front 30

Ad Hominen

Back 30

criticising the person putting forward the argument, not the argument itself

Front 31

Conflation

Back 31

using two different terms as if they were exactly the same, the conclusion then presented using only one of the concepts

Front 32

Simplyfying casual relationships

Back 32

one event was caused by another without providing sufficent evidence

Front 33

Restricting the options

Back 33

limited number of possibilities which listener not allowed to chose, others options not mentioned

Front 34

Tu Quoque

Back 34

deflecting criticsm by accusing the critic of being guilty of the same thing (two wrongs don't make a right)

Front 35

Confusing necessary and sufficnet conditions

Back 35

necessary conditions is vital for something else to happen. Sufficent conditions gaurenteers next stop can follow

Front 36

Hasty Generalisation

Back 36

something claimed about a large group of people based on little evidence

Front 37

Straw Man

Back 37

argument grossly exaggerated or simplified to make it easier to knock down

Front 38

Ad Hominen

Back 38

criticising the person putting forward the argument, not the argument itself

Front 39

Conflation

Back 39

using two different terms as if they were exactly the same, the conclusion then presented using only one of the concepts

Front 40

Simplyfying casual relationships

Back 40

one event was caused by another without providing sufficent evidence