Philosophy Critical Thinking Exam

Front 1

What is an argument?

Back 1

• Combination of statements→ some statements are intended to support others (WP. 22)
• Ex) “Johnson is the worst governor this state has ever had. He has ruined the states’ economy. And he has used his office to persecute those he doesn’t like. I am against Johsnon’s outrageous behavior and obvious ineptness” (WP. 25)

Front 2

What is an inference?

Back 2

• The process of reasoning from a premise to a conclusion based on the premise

Front 3

What is a premise?

Back 3

• Statements that provide reasons for believing another statement is true (WP. 22)
• Ex) All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal. → “All men are mortal” (premise 1). “Socrates is a man” (premise 2). Therefore Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

Front 4

What is a deductively valid argument?

Back 4

• If the premises are true (we suppose they are true, so they could be complete nonsense), then the conclusion is guaranteed to logically follow
• Valid deductive arguments have four different forms:
i. Affirming the antecedent
ii. Denying the consequent
iii. Hypothetical syllogism
iv. Disjunctive syllogism

Front 5

What is a deductively invalid argument?

Back 5

• Argument where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise (WP.28)
• Invalid deductive arguments have two different forms
i. Denying the antecedent
ii. Affirming the consequent

Front 6

What is affirming the antecedent (Modus ponens)?

Back 6

• The second premise affirms the antecedent of the first premise (WP. 31)
• Form: If p, then q. p. Therefore, q.
• Ex) If stealing harms people (p), then it is morally wrong (q). Stealing does harm people (p). Therefore, stealing is morally wrong (q).

Front 7

What is denying the consequent (Modus tollens)?

Back 7

• Form: If p, then q. Not q. Therefore, not P.
• Ex) If the cat is on the mat (p), then she is asleep (q). But she is not asleep (~q). Therefore, she is not on the mat (not p).

Front 8

What is hypothetical syllogism?

Back 8

• Form: If p, then q. If q, then r. Therefore, if p, then r (WP. 32).
• Ex) If the cat is on the mat (p), then she is asleep (q). If she is asleep (q), she is dreaming (r). Therefore, if the cat is on the mat (p), she is dreaming (q).

Front 9

What is disjunctive syllogism?

Back 9

disjunctive means one or the other, not both


• Form: A or B. Not A. Therefore B .
• Ex) You overslept this morning (A) or you went to class (B). You did not go to class this morning (~A). Therefore, you overslept (B).

Front 10

What is denying the antecedent?

Back 10

• Form: If p, then q. Not p. Therefore, not q (WP. 32).
• Ex) If the cat is on the mat (p), then she is asleep (q). She is not on the mat (~p). Therefore, she is not asleep (~q).

Front 11

What is affirming the consequent?

Back 11

• Form: If p, then q. q. Therefore, p. (WP. 33).
• Ex) If the cat is on the mat (p), then she is asleep (q). She is asleep (q). Therefore, she is on the mat (p).

Front 12

What is a sound argument?

Back 12

• An argument that is both deductively valid and supported by premises that are in fact true
• An argument can be valid, but this does not necessarily mean it is true. This argument would not be sound

Front 13

What is an inductive argument

Back 13

• Arguments that provide probable support for their conclusions, thus cannot guarantee the truth of the conclusion (WP. 29).
• Inductive arguments can be either strong or weak
• Inductive arguments take 3 forms:
i. Argument by analogy
ii. Enumerative induction
iii. Inference to the best explanation?
• Strong = probably support
• Ex) Almost all of the students at this school are Democrats. Therefore, Maria, who is a student here is probably a Democrat (strong)
• Ex) 90% of the Republicans I know are Volvo owners. Therefore, 90% of all republicans are Volvo owners (weak)

Front 14

What is argument by analogy (analogical induction)?

Back 14

• Two (or more) things are similar in several ways; therefore they are probably similar in one further way (WP.35).
• Form: X has properties 1, 2, 3, and 4. Y has properties 1, 2, and 3. Therefore, Y also probably has property 4.
• Strength relies on the relevancy of the similarities being compared
• Ex) Humans can walk upright, use simple tools, learn new skills, and devise deductive arguments. Chimpanzees can walk upright, use simple tools, and learn new skills. Therefore, chimpanzees can probably devise deductive arguments

Front 15

What is enumerative induction?

Back 15

• Arrival at a generalization about an entire group of things after observing just a few members of the group (WP. 33).
• Implies inadequate representative sample
• Form: X percent of the observed members of group A have property P. Therefore, X percent of all members of group A probably have property P.
• Ex) 60% of Bostonians I have interviewed in various parts of the city are pro-choice. Therefore, 60% of all Bostonians are probably pro-choice.

Front 16

What is inference to the best explanation?

Back 16

• Premises about a phenomenon to be explained. Then we reason from those premises to an explanation. The best explanation is the most likely to be true (WP. 36).
• Form: Phenomenon Q. E provides best explanation for Q. Therefore, it is probable that E is true.
• Ex) Tariq flunked his philosophy course (Q). The best explanation for this is that he didn’t read the material (E). Therefore, he probably didn’t read the material.

Front 17

What is critical thinking?

Back 17

the systematic evaluation or formulation of beliefs, or statements by rational standards. Questions the quality of your beliefs, requires logic, leads you to knowledge, which leads you to empowerment.

Front 18

What some common psychological obstacles (category 1) to critical thinking?

Back 18

• Self centered thinking
• Personal stake in the conclusions to be reached
• Selective attention
• Power of the group (peer pressure, appeal to popularity, stereotyping)
• Subjective relativism
• Social relativism
• Skepticism

Front 19

In what ways does the “mighty self” get in the way of doing critical thinking?

Back 19

• Humans spend a great deal of time protecting, maintaining, and comforting our own mental life. This causes no harm until our self-serving efforts have gone too far. At this point we accept claims for no good reason, meaning our thinking is no longer systematic and rational. This distorts our judgment and increases our risk of error (PTC. 38).
• In other words, we strive to save face
• This is called self-interested thinking (making decision based on self interest alone)
• Ex) A juror insists that a teenage boy is guilty when there is strong evidence pointing towards his innocence. He refuses to vote not guilty. It later becomes clear that this juror has a trouble relationship with his son and this is why he votes to convict the teenage boy.
• Self centered thinking = self destructive → prevents maturity and self-awareness

Front 20

What is the fallacy of selective attention?

Back 20

• Failure to consider evidence or arguments that do not support your preferred claim
• If you have a personal stake in the matter you may knowingly or unknowingly look for evidence in favor, but ignore evidence against it.

Front 21

What is subjective relativism?

Back 21

• The truth depends on what someone believes
• Ex) If you believe dogs can fly, then it is true (for you) that dogs can fly.

Front 22

What is social relativism?

Back 22

• The truth depends on societies beliefs

Front 23

What problems do subjective and social relativism have?

Back 23

• Undermines critical thinking (determining truth or falsity) → if we can claim that anything can be true based on a personal/societal belief then there is no reason to use critical thinking
• Infallibility → we cannot possibly see error in anything we do
• Hinders progress because we never try to challenge the current way of doing things.
• Can also lead to acceptance of genocide or other atrocities

Front 24

What is a fallacy?

Back 24

• Common but bad arguments that is deceptively plausible (WP. 85).

Front 25

What is the difference between and logical and an informal fallacy?

Back 25

A

Front 26

What is the straw man fallacy?

Back 26

• Misrepresentation of a person’s view so that he or she can be more easily attacked or dismissed (WP. 86).
• Ex) You argue that the war in Iraq is too costly in lives and money. Your opponent respond: My adversary argues that the war in Iraq is much to difficult for the US and the we ought to cut and run while we can.

Front 27

What is the appeal to a person fallacy (ad hominem)?

Back 27

• Rejection of a statement on the grounds that it comes from a particular person, not because the statement is false (WP. 86).
• Ex) Johnson argues that our current welfare system is defective. But don’t listen to him – he’s a conservative

Front 28

What is the appeal to popularity (masses) fallacy?

Back 28

• A claim must be true because many people believe it (WP. 87).
• Ex) Most people believe that Jones is guilty, so he’s guilty.

Front 29

What is hasty generalization fallacy?

Back 29

• Drawing a conclusion about a whole group of things based an inadequate sample of the group (WP. 92).
• Ex) All three of the college professors I’ve met in my lifetime were bald. Therefore, all college professors are bald

Front 30

What is the slippery slope fallacy?

Back 30

• Arguing that a particular action should not be taken because it will inevitably lead to other actions resulting in an undesirable outcome (WP. 93)
• Ex) This trend toward gay marriage must be stopped. If gay marriage is permitted, then traditional marriage between a man and woman will be debased and devalued, which will lead to an increase in divorces. And higher divorce rates can only harm our children.

Front 31

What is the fallacy of spurious or accidental correlation (false cause)?

Back 31

• A occurred, and then B occurred. Therefore, A caused B to occur
• Ex). Gas prices have gone up during Obama’s term. Therefore, Obama caused gas prices to go up.

Front 32

What is the appeal to fear fallacy?

Back 32

• Trying to prove a conclusion by using that very conclusion as support. X is true because X is true (WP. 91).
• Ex) All citizens have the right to a fair trial because those whom the state is obliged to protect and give consideration are automatically due judicial criminal proceedings that are equitable by any reasonable standards

Front 33

What is the genetic fallacy?

Back 33

• Arguing that a statement can be judged based on its source (WP. 88).
• Differs from appeal to person because the truth of the statement is supposed to depend on origins other than an individual (organizations, political think tanks, schools of thought)
• Ex) The US senate is considering a proposal to reform affirmative action, but you know their ideas must be ridiculous. What do they know about the rights of the disadvantaged? They are a bunch of rich, white guys.

Front 34

What is the fallacy of equivocation?

Back 34

• Assigning two different meanings to the same significant word in an argument. The word has one meaning in a premise and another meaning later in the argument (WP. 89).
• Ex) Only man is rational. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is rational.

Front 35

What is the fallacy of false dilemma?

Back 35

• Argues that there are only two alternatives to chose from, and one of them is unacceptable, so, therefore the other one must be true (WP. 91).
• Ex) Either we must spend billions of dollars to increase military and law enforcement operations against drug cartels, or we must legalize all drugs. We obviously aren’t going to legalize all drugs, so we have to spend billions of dollars.

Front 36

What is the fallacy of ignorance?

Back 36

• Arguing that (1) a claim is true because it hasn’t been proven false or (2) a claim is false because it hasn’t been proven true (WP. 90).
• Ex) No one has ever shown that ESP (extrasensory perception) is real. Therefore, it does not exist.

Front 37

What is the fallacy composition

Back 37

• Arguing that what can be said of the parts can also be said of the whole (WP. 94).
• Ex) Each soldier in the platoon is proficient. Therefore the platoon as a whole is proficient

Front 38

What is the fallacy of division?

Back 38

• Arguing that what can be said of the whole can also be said of the parts (WP. 94).
• Ex) The platoon is very effective. Therefore, every member of the platoon is effective