Question 1.1. (TCO 1) “Thinking about thinking” is the definition of what? (Points : 4)
Development of arguments
Measure of good sense
Development of critical skills
Writing for clarity
Critical thinking
Question 2.2. (TCO 1, 2, 4) What is the simple definition of an issue? (Points : 4)
An element of political controversy
A point of conflict between people or groups of people
Nothing more than a question of whether a given claim is true or not
A cultural claim by a group of people with an allegation of rightness
An allegation of truth or falsehood
Question 3.3. (TCO 1, 2, 3) What are the two parts of an argument? (Points : 4)
Description and detail
Problem and proposal
Explanation and clarification
Definition and example
Premise and conclusion
Question 4.4. (TCOs 2, 3) Inductive arguments support conclusions and are described as stronger or weaker. What is meant by that description? (Points : 4)
It proves the conclusion.
It is a measure of how much support a premise provides for a conclusion.
It is a measure to show opportunities for improvement.
It is a measure of how certain the conclusion is.
It provides encouragement for believing the claim in the conclusion.
Question 5.5. (TCO 1, 2) The mode of persuasion that Aristotle defined as ethos refers 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 usually NOT a 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) If a claim is made by a disinterested party, we know that (Points : 4)
disinterested parties have no stake in our believing one way or another.
disinterested parties bring weaker information.
disinterested parties lack expertise in the content of given claims.
disinterested parties lack credibility over a given claim.
disinterested parties bring irrelevant considerations to discussions.
Question 10.10. (TCOs 1, 6, 7, 9) What is the meaning of the rhetorical device called a stereotype? (Points : 4)
Assumptions about all members of a group based on a single member
A thought or image about a group of people based on little or no evidence
A euphemism for opposing groups
A multiple view of an identified group of people or objects
A categorization of similar people
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 personal ad hominem fallacy? (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 are the two terms that go into the standard-form categorical claim? (Points : 4)
Initial term and background term
Plain term and common sense term
Category term and individual term
Subject term and predicate term
First term and second term
Question 15.15. (TCOs 3, 4) Each standard form of categorical logic has its own graphic illustration known by what name? (Points : 4)
Overlapping regions
Block of exclusion
JoHari window
Venn diagram
Square of opposition
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 subcontrary claims? (Points : 4)
They would share the same predicate term.
They would share the same subject term.
They need not be in the same standard form of translation.
They can both be true, but they cannot both be false.
Only one of them can be true.
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 hasty generalization”? (Points : 4)
The ac
ceptance of a lowered error margin
A rush to judgment
A conclusion based on the earliest results of a sample
Letting one’s own biases impact interpretation of results
Overestimating the strength of an argument based on a small sample
Question 22.22. (TCOs 1, 2) What does “attacking the analogy” mean? (Points : 4)
The acceptance of a lowered degree of similarity between analogues
Showing that analogues are not as similar as stated or implied
A conclusion based on the earliest results of a sample
Showing the interpretation of results
Overestimating the strength of an analogy
Question 23.23. (TCOs 1, 2, 3) What is the difference between an explanation and an argument? (Points : 4)
Arguments are specific; explanations are general.
Arguments support or demonstrate statements; explanations elucidate something in one way or another.
Arguments describe what does happen; explanations describe what will happen.
Arguments show the interpretation of results; explanations show the reasons for the results.
Arguments make claims; explanations make premises.
Question 24.24. (TCOs 2, 6) Aristotle wrote in the Nicomachean Ethics that ethical virtues are what? (Points : 4)
Gained by imitating worthy people
Natural-born abilities
Traits (such as wisdom, justice, courage, and temperance) that we acquire through our abilities of reason and which we practice until they become habits
Gained by concentrated study under disciplined teachers, much like coaching
Gained by specialized knowledge and study in very precisely defined subjects
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.” What fallacy is being committed by the person who violates this statement? (Points : 4)
Red herring
Inconsistency ad hominem
Utilitarianism
Justified exception to the rule
Strawman
