Question
1.1.(TCO
1) What makes critical thinkingcritical?(Points : 4)
It requires careful and
deliberate work
It is an analytic process
It requires coming up with
claims, true or otherwise
It is the application of common
sense to complex problems
It offers guidance about
critiquing thinking
Question
2.2.(TCO
1, 2, 4) What is the first order of business when it comes to thinking
critically about an issue?(Points
: 4)
Formulating a proposal
Discovering whether the question
is objective
Determining exactly what the
issueis
Determining whether a fallacy is
involved
Realizing that all claims are
equally valid
Question
3.3.(TCOs
1, 2, 3) What activity is being attempted when making an argument?(Points : 4)
Arguments attempt to persuade
those who listen or read them.
Arguments seek to win adherents
to a position.
Arguments seek to refute the
positions of other people.
Arguments attempt to support or
prove conclusions.
Arguments attempt to explain
difficult concepts.
Question
4.4.(TCOs
2, 3) For inductive arguments, how do we measure their quality as
stronger or weaker?(Points
: 4)
Based on how much support their
premises provide for the conclusion
Based on requiring little
translation into syllogistic form
Based on their appearing in a
standard form
Based on the clear definition of
critical words
Based on the syllogism that can
be formed from them
Question
5.5.(TCO
1, 2) The mode of persuasion that Aristotle defined aspathosrefers to arguments based on
what?(Points : 4)
Whether a decision is ethical
Being alert to influences in
one’s thinking
The speaker’s personal
attributes
The audience’s emotions
Using information and reasoning
Question
6.6.(TCO
6) What is a likely reason for having trouble identifying a conclusion in
what you hear or read?(Points
: 4)
There are too many rhetorical
claims
There is not enough background
information
The premise introduces a
consideration that runs counter to common sense
The conventions of argument are
not being followed
It could be that the passage is
not an argument at all
Question
7.7.(TCOs
6, 7, 8, 9) Which of the five items below is usuallyNOTa part of a good argumentative
essay?
(Points : 4)
A statement of one's position on
the issue
Arguments that support one's
position on the issue
Rebuttals of arguments that
support contrary positions on the issue
An author's claim to speak with
respected expertise based on qualifications or experience
A statement of the issue
Question
8.8.(TCOs
6, 8, 9) What is grouping ambiguity?(Points : 4)
When one arbitrarily classifies
people as a group for unclear purposes
When people share an affinity
that is not obvious
When it is not clear whether a
word is being used to refer to a group or to the individuals within a group
When an author or speaker seeks
a group to blame as a scapegoat
When labeling classifications of
people with epithets
Question
9.9.(TCOs
2, 6, 7, 8) Which of the following would suggest a lack of credibility in
a claim?(Points : 4)
When it is accompanied by other
claims that have credibility
The claim conflicts with what we
have observed
When the person presenting the
claim has something to gain by our believing it
When it brings something we have
not learned before
When it comes from an interested
party
Question
10.10.(TCOs
1, 6, 7, 9) What is the purpose of the rhetorical device called a
euphemism?(Points : 4)
To replace ambiguous terms with
clearer ones
To hide the agenda of interested
parties
To replace another term with a
neutral or positive expression instead of one with negative associations
To replace vague terms with
others that communicate more information
To replace other expressions
with new ones that are expected to be more acceptable
Question
11.11.(TCOs
1, 7) What is the purpose of the rhetorical device called hyperbole?(Points : 4)
Synonym for euphemism
To bring humor to a difficult
analysis
Exaggerating for effect
Sarcastic claim
Based on unwarranted assumptions
Question
12.12.(TCOs
1, 2) What is the personalad
hominemfallacy?(Points : 4)
Attacking an argument based on
the personal shortcomings of the one making the argument
The status given to an argument
based on the fame and good reputation of the originating person
Attacking an argument based on
the confusion of what the author has presented before
Attacking an argument because of
who presented it
Attributing added value to an
argument based on who has presented it
Question
13.13.(TCOs
6, 7, 8) To the overall topic of burden of proof, what is the purpose of
the rule called affirmative/negative plausibility?(Points : 4)
Other things being equal, the
burden of proof falls automatically on those supporting it affirmatively.
Other things being equal, the
burden of proof is shared by all parties that have a shared interest in the
outcome.
Other things being equal, the burden
of proof rests with the parties with the most to lose.
Other things being equal, the
burden of proof rests with neither party automatically.
Other things being equal, the
first decision must be who must bear the burden of proof.
Question
14.14.(TCOs
1, 2) What is a standard-form categorical claim?(Points : 4)
The claim that the burden of
proof must be shared because the evidence is too weak and indirect.
A claim based on the primary
documents of early philosophers.
A claim that strictly follows
Aristotle’s method.
A claim that relies upon the
orderly processes of biology.
A claim that results from
putting names or descriptions of classes into one of the AEIO forms.
Question
15.15.(TCOs
3, 4) What is the purpose of a Venn Diagram?(Points : 4)
To give a graphic illustration
of standard-form claims
To show how nouns and noun
phrases relate
To demonstrate the orderly
processes of biology
To show the primary
characteristics of things
To illustrate the classes of
things
Question
16.16.(TCOs
3, 4, 8, 9) What circumstances are necessary for two claims to be
equivalent?(Points : 4)
They would be true in all and
exactly the same circumstances.
They match perfectly in form but
address differing topics.
They match but one of the issues
cannot be affirmed as true.
They both give a graphic
illustration of standard-form claims.
They express differing relations
within the same class or category.
Question
17.17.(TCOs
2, 3, 4) Logical relationships between corresponding claims of
standard-form categorical logic are illustrated in the graphic square of
opposition. What is known about two claims when they are called
contradictory claims?(Points
: 4)
They never have the same truth
values.
One is always false in the set.
They always have the same truth
values.
They never share the same
subject term.
One is always true in the set.
Question
18.18.(TCOs
2, 3, 4) How do we work the categorical operation called obversion?(Points : 4)
By changing the claims from
being in the same class to being outside the class
By limiting the scope of terms
used to those within a class
By changing a claim from
positive to negative, or vice versa
By changing one claim to
referring outside of a class but leaving the other one inside the class
By making an argument invalid in
form
Question
19.19.(TCOs
2, 5) What is the purpose of studying a sample?(Points : 4)
To establish logical connections
among a group of people
To observe new and previously
unseen factors in a population of people
To reduce a study to a
manageable size
For reasons of economy of both
effort and cost
To generalize your findings from
a sample to the whole set from which the sample is taken
Question
20.20.(TCOs
2, 5) In studying a sample, what is meant by the term sampling frame?(Points : 4)
A precise definition of the
population and the attribute in which one is interested
The diversity of the whole
population that is being studied
Some part of the population
intentionally left out of the target population
Some biasing factor excluded
from the target population
The size of the sample itself
Question
21.21.(TCOs
1, 5, 8, 9) What is the inductive “fallacy of anecdotal evidence”?(Points : 4)
A version of hasty generalizing
where the sample is just a story
Bypassing standard questions to
ask for opinions
Telling personal experiences
Bypassing standard questioning
to accept data that does not match the possible answers
Asking hypothetical questions of
"what if..."
Question
22.22.(TCOs
1, 2) What is an analogue?(Points
: 4)
A version of hasty generalizing
where the sample is just a story
The idea that one can understand
predictability and overcome its randomness
Telling personal experiences
The idea that sequences of
occurrences can be predicted
A thing that has similar
attributes to another thing
Question
23.23.(TCOs
1, 2, 3) What is the purpose of explanations?(Points : 4)
Describing natural phenomena
Elucidating something in one way
or another
Providing ethical justifications
for actions
Providing knowledge
Providing reasons to believe
claims
Question
24.24.(TCOs
2, 6) The deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant define moral
imperatives to prescribe actions not for the sake of some result but
simply because(Points
: 4)
those actions are our moral
duty.
those actions are dictated by
conscience.
those actions will produce the
greatest happiness.
those actions will promote the
freedom of other people.
those actions will benefit
everyone concerned.
Question
25.25.(TCOs
1, 6) "If someone appears to be violating the consistency principle,
then the burden of proof is on that person to show he or she is in fact
not violating the principle." Why is this principle necessary?(Points : 4)
Moral arguments need to be
specific.
It is how one deduces the right
thing to do.
Out of fairness, separate moral
cases, if similar, must be given similar treatment.
Moral explanations need to show
the reasons for the results.
All moral claims are relative.
Question 1.1.(TCOs 3, 6, 7, 9) Here is a
passage that contains a rhetorical fallacy.
Name that fallacy, and in a paragraph, explain why the argument is irrelevant
to the point at issue. Here is your example for this question:
An editorial says, "Taxes have jumped by more than 30% in just two
years! The governor is working for a balanced state budget, but it'll be
on the backs of us taxpayers, the people who have the very least to
spend! It seems pretty clear that these increased taxes are undermining
the social structure in this state. Anybody who isn't angry about this
just doesn't understand the situation and hasn't figured out just how
miserable they are."(Points
: 15)
Question 2.2.(TCOs 5, 8) In the example below,
identify the presumed cause and the presumed effect. Does the example contain
or imply a causal claim, a hypothesis, or an explanation that cannot be
tested?
If it does fall into one of those categories, tell whether the problem is due
to vagueness, circularity, or some other problem of language.
Also tell whether there might be some way to test the situation if it is
possible at all.
Here is your example:
This part of the coastline is subject to mudslides because there is a lack of
mature vegetation growing on it.(Points : 15)
Question 3.3.(TCOs 2, 4) Explain in what
way the thinking of the following statement is wrong or defective. Give
reasons for your judgment.
I believe that violent video games contribute to sexual violence and other
forms of antisocial behavior. No one has ever shown that it doesn’t.(Points : 10)
Question 4.4.(TCOs 3, 9) Can a person belong to
more than one culture at the same time? If so, does this create any logical
difficulty for moral relativists?(Points : 10)
Question 5.5.(TCOs 6, 7, 9) Here is a
short essay about an investigation.
There are also four questions/tasks; write a paragraph to answer each one of
them.
1. Identify the causal hypothesis at issue.
2. Identify what kind of investigation it is.
3. There are control and experimental groups. State the difference in
effect (or cause) between the control and experimental groups.
4. State the conclusion that you think is warranted by the report.
Research at the University of Pennsylvania and the Children's Hospital of
Philadelphia indicates that children who sleep in a dimly lighted room until age
two may be up to five times more likely to develop myopia (nearsightedness)
when they grow up.
The researchers asked the parents of children who had been patients at the
researchers' eye clinic to recall the lighting conditions in the children's
bedroom from birth to age two.
Of a total of 172 children who slept in darkness, 10% were nearsighted. Of a
total of 232 who slept with a night light, 34% were nearsighted. Of a
total of 75 who slept with a lamp on, 55% were nearsighted.
The lead ophthalmologist, Dr. Graham, E. Quinn, said that "just as the
body needs to rest, this suggests that the eyes need a period of
darkness."(Points : 30)
Question 6.6.(TCOs 3, 4, 6) Read this passage
below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a
paragraph for each question.
Your three questions are:
1. What issue is the author addressing?
2. If the author is supporting a position with an argument, restate the
argument in your own words.
3. What rhetorical devices does the author employ in this text?
The Passage:
"Another quality that makes [Texas Republican and former Congressman]
Tom DeLay an un-Texas politician is that he's mean. By and large, Texas
pols are an agreeable set of less-than-perfect humans and quite often
well-intentioned. As Carl Parker of Port Arthur used to observe, if you
took all the fools out of the [legislature], it would not be a representative
body any longer. The old sense of collegiality was strong, and vindictive
behavior punishing pols for partisan reasons was simply not done. But
those are Tom DeLay's specialties, his trademarks. The Hammer is not only
genuinely feared in Washington, he is, I'm sorry to say, hated."
-excerpt from a column by Molly Ivins,Ft. Worth Star-Telegram(Points : 30)
Question 7.7.(TCOs 7, 8) Read this passage
below. When you have done so, answer the question in at least one full
paragraph, giving specific reasons.
The Passage:
Elizabeth has a paper due tomorrow morning. She has tried to write something
for hours, but has no ideas for a good paper. Elizabeth remembers that her
sorority sister, Deb, said that Elizabeth could use any of Deb’s papers in
their sorority house computer. Elizabeth remembers that Deb wrote a paper on
the very same topic the previous semester. Elizabeth decides to get Deb’s
paper off the sorority house computer and leave a note telling Deb what she
has done. Elizabeth feels confident that she has Deb’s permission to do this.
Is Elizabeth guilty of plagiarizing?(Points
: 20)
a
Question 8.8.(TCOs 6, 7, 9) Read this passage
below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a
paragraph for each question.
Your three questions are as follows.
1. What premises is the author using?
2. What conclusions does the author come to?
3. Are the conclusions justified?
Either one thinks that there is no reason for believing any political
doctrine or one sees some reason, however shaky, for the commitment of
politics. If a person believes that political doctrines are void of content,
that person will be quite content to see political debates go on, but won't
expect anything useful to come from them. If we consider the other case that
there is a patriotic justification for a political belief, then what? If the
belief is that a specific political position is true, then one ought to be
intolerant of all other political beliefs, since each political position must
be held to be false relative to the belief one has. And since each political
position holds out the promise of reward for any probability of its fixing
social problems, however small, that makes it seem rational to choose it over
its alternatives. The trouble, of course, is that the people who have other
political doctrines may hold theirs just as strongly, making strength of
belief itself invalid as a way to determine the rightness of a political
position.(Points : 20)
Solution: Devry PHIL447 final exam