Question 1. 1. (TCO 1) In Chapter 1, we learned the definition of the term criti

Question

  

  

Question 1. 1. (TCO 1) In Chapter 1, we learned the definition of the term critical thinking. What skill(s) does a student need for critical thinking? (Points : 4)        To separate fact from opinion
       To construct and critically evaluate claims and arguments
       To select the strongest set of supporting data
       a and b only
       All of the above Question 2. 2. (TCO 1, 2, 4) In Chapter 1, we learned the definition of the term issue. The first order of business when it comes to thinking critically about an issue is: (Points : 4)        formulating a proposal.
       discovering what side you’re on.
       determining exactly what the issue is.
       realizing that all claims are equally valid. Question 3. 3. (TCO 1, 2, 3) In Chapter 1, we learned the definition of the term argument. In order for a premise to offer support for the conclusion, it needs to be both (Points : 4)        ethical and just.
       popular and commonly accepted.
       true and relevant to the conclusion.
       true and a restatement of the conclusion. Question 4. 4. (TCOs 2, 3) In Chapter 2, we learned the meaning of inductive arguments. The strength or weakness of an inductive argument is based on (Points : 4)        how much support their premises provide for the conclusion.
       requiring little translation into syllogistic form.
       appearing in a standard form.
       clear definition of critical words.
Question 5. 5. (TCO 1, 2) In Chapter 2, we learned the meaning of the three modes of persuasion, as defined by Aristotle. Pathos
refers to arguments based on (Points : 4)        logic and reasoning.
       ethics and moral character.
       emotions and passions.
       experiment and observations. Question 6. 6. (TCO 6) In Chapter 2, we learned how to analyze arguments. After identifying the author's conclusion or thesis in a passage, the next step is to (Points : 4)        locate the reasons offered to support the conclusion.
       separate the argument from nonargumentative material.
       identify the prejudicial nature of the language of the passage.
       gather more background information.
Question 7. 7. (TCOs 6, 7, 8, 9) In Chapter 3, we learned about the key elements of an argumentative essay. An author of a good argumentative essay should do all of the following, EXCEPT (Points : 4)        state the issue.
       state his/her position on the issue.
       state his/her authority or expertise.
       provide arguments that support his/her position on the issue. Question 8. 8. (TCOs 6, 8, 9) In Chapter 3, we learned the meaning of ambiguity and the difference between semantic and syntactic ambiguous claims. The precise meaning of syntactically ambiguous statement is one that is (Points : 4)        vague and too general.
       imprecise and lacking clarity.
       not clear; it could have one or more words that have more than one meaning.
       not clear; it could have two or more meanings due to a confusion in its structure or grammar.
Question 9. 9. (TCOs 2, 6, 7, 8) In Chapter 4, we learned how to assess the credibility of claims. A claim lacks credibility when it (Points : 4)        accompanies other claims that have credibility.
       conflicts with what we have observed.
       lacks conclusive evidence to support it.
       is something we have not learned before. Question 10. 10. (TCOs 1, 6, 7, 9) In Chapter 5, we learned that it is important to recognize when a rhetorical slanting device is being used to influence our attitudes and beliefs. The purpose of the rhetorical device called a dysphemism is to replace a term with a(n) _____ meaning with one that has a(n) _____ meaning. (Points : 4)        inappropriate; appropriate
       vague; precise
       ambiguous; clearer
       positive or neutral; negative Question 11. 11. (TCOs 1, 7) In Chapter 5, we learned that it is important to recognize when a rhetorical slanting device is being used to influence our attitudes and beliefs. The purpose of the rhetorical device called hyperbole is to (Points : 4)        substitute a synonym for euphemism.
       to bring humor to a difficult analysis.
       exaggerating for effect.
       issue a claim based on unwarranted assumptions.

Question 12. 12. (TCOs 1, 2) In Chapter 6, we learned that it is important to recognize when a fallacy of relevance is being used to influence our attitudes and beliefs. The inconsistency ad hominem fallacy points to a contradiction between the speaker’s argument and arguments or beliefs made by (Points : 4)        opponents of the speaker.
       people with more credibility than the speaker.
       the speaker in the past.
       scientists who have conducted research. Question 13. 13. (TCOs 6, 7, 8) In Chapter 6, we learned that which party is responsible for the burden of proof depends upon a number of factors. All things being equal, the burden of proof falls automatically on the party taking the (Points : 4)        affirmative side of the issue.
       negative side of the issue.
       position neither for or against.
       both sides of the issue. Question 14. 14. (TCOs 1, 2) In Chapter 11, we learned how to evaluate arguments from analogy. The best way to demonstrate the weakness of an argument form analogy is to show that the analogues are (Points : 4)        more similar than stated or implied.
       less similar than stated or implied.
       found in the premises but not in the conclusion.
       found in the conclusion but not in the premises.
Question 15. 15. (TCOs 3, 4) In Chapter 9, we learned the basics of categorical logic. 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 Question 16. 16. (TCOs 3, 4, 8, 9) In Chapter 9, we learned the basics of Categorical Logic. Two claims can be equivalent, if and only if, under the same circumstances (Points : 4)        Both would be true
       Both would be false
       One would be true and the other false
       Their truth values would have no relationship
Question 17. 17. (TCOs 2, 3, 4) In Chapter 9, we learned that the square of opposition is a graphic illustration of the relationship between the four standard-form categorical claims. In the square of opposition, the contrary claims are those where (Points : 4)        both of claims cannot be true.
       both of claims cannot be false.
       the claims have the opposite truth value.
       the claims have unrelated truth values. Question 18. 18. (TCOs 2, 3, 4) In Chapter 9, we learned the basics of categorical logic, including three categorical relations: conversion, contraposition, and obversion. Contraposition involves replacing the standard terms with _____ terms. (Points : 4)        positive
       negative
       contrary
       complementary Question 19. 19. (TCOs 2, 5) In Chapter 11, we learned how to evaluate inductive generalizations based on samples. The purpose of studying samples is to generalize from (Points : 4)        one sample to another in the sample population.
       one sample to another in a different population.
       all samples in and out of the population.
       a sample to the whole population from which the sample is taken. Question 20. 20. (TCOs 2, 5) In Chapter 11, we learned how to evaluate inductive generalizations based on samples. In evaluating a sample, the two key factors that need to be addressed are sample (Points : 4)        strength and weakness.
       size and bias.
       weight and volume.
       similarities and dissimilarities. Question 21. 21. (TCOs 1, 5, 8, 9) In Chapter 7, we learned how to recognize fallacies of induction. The fallacy of anecdotal evidence is a version of (Points : 4)        biased generalization.
       hasty generalization.
       generalization without a sample.
       generalization without a random sample. Question 22. 22. (TCOs 1, 2, 3) In Chapter 11, we learned about the meaning and function of three principles of causal hypotheses. If the co-variation principle states that variation in one phenomenon is accompanied by a variation in another phenomenon, then consider (Points : 4)        other possible explanations for the variation.
       the two phenomena may be causally related.
       the two phenomena as the result of another underlying cause.
       whether or not the variations are significant enough to form a judgment. Question 23. 23. (TCOs 2, 6) In Chapter 12, we learned the basics of Aristotle’s ethics. In his famous book, Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle taught that ethical virtues are (Points : 4)        beliefs and principles.
       innate abilities based on genetic predisposition.
       based on fortune and circumstance.
       character traits gained through education and reason. Question 24. 24. (TCOs 2, 6) In Chapter 12, we learned the difference between moral relativism and moral absolutism. According to moral relativism, the idea of right or wrong is based on (Points : 4)        objective moral principles.
       individual preferences.
       the beliefs of one's group or culture.
       whatever promotes our own self-interests. Question 25. 25. (TCOs 1, 6) In Chapter 12, we learned about moral reasoning principle #2, which states in part, “If someone appears to be violating the consistency principle, then burden of proof is on the person (Points : 4)        observing the violation of the consistency principle.”
       violating the consistency principle.”
       anyone who is using moral reasoning.”
       people who don’t reason about morals and just accept them at face value.”

Explanation / Answer

1.1

Critical thinking requires a separte domain and fact of opiniojn with regard to an issue. The issue should be evaluated from different side of the speaker and thre should be critical evaluation of the claims and arguments with respect to two different opinions which many a times we call debate.

So the answer is a and b only.

2.2 The first order of business when it comes to thinking critically about an issue is to determine what exactly the issue is. Explanation of the issue in exact terms will let the paries decide the courses of actions and avaluate each and every aspect of the issue.

3.3

In order for a premise to offer support for the conclusion, it needs to be both true and relevant to the conclusion. Otherwise the task of evaluation will fail.

In order for a premise to offer support for the conclusion, it needs to be both true and relevant to the conclusion. Otherwise the task of evaluation will fail.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse Q
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.