Question
click below
click below
Question
Normal Size Small Size show me how
CLC1 - Most Modules
Reasoning and Problem Solving Modules 2-6, 8
Question | Answer |
---|---|
The elements of reasoning are also known as the: | Parts of thinking and Fundamental structures of thought |
The mind drawing conclusions on the basis of reasons defines which process? | Reasoning |
Which elements of reasoning are operative when we think through a problem? | All eight elements |
What is the term for the goal or desired outcome of our reasoning? | Purpose |
What is it called when we take something for granted as true in our reasoning? | Assumption |
What is said to follow from our reasoning? | Implications |
Theories are examples of: | Concepts |
In reasoning, we make __________ based on ___________. | Inferences/assumptions |
Distinctions between the elements of reasoning are_______ not ________. | Relative/Absolute |
True or false: The standards of critical thinking must be applied to the elements as the critical thinker learns to develop intellectual traits. | True |
What best describes activated ignorance? | Mentally taking in and actively using false information |
In some cases, the conclusions we draw are based on assumptions that operate at a(n) ________ level. | Unconscious |
What are the three kinds of implications that may be involved in any situation? | Possible, probable, necessary |
Thinking that is easily understood reflects which of the intellectual standards? | Clarity |
Reasoning that is specific, exact and sufficiently detailed is said to be: | Precise |
A logical process of drawing conclusions | Inference |
Unstated or hidden beliefs that support our explicit reasoning | Assumptions |
The goal or objective of reasoning | Purpose |
Being unambiguous and easily understood | Clarity |
What logically follows from reasoning | Implication |
Being near to the true value or meaning of something | Accuracy |
The particular perspective from which something is observed or thought through | Point of View |
General categories of ideas by which we interpret or classify information used in our thinking | Concepts |
Being precise or exact | Precision |
What are questions of fact? | Questions with only one correct answer |
What are questions of preference? | Questions with many possible answers based on subjective preferences |
What are questions of judgment? | Questions with more than one answer, with some better than others |
Which of the 3 types of questions requires critical thinking? | Questions of judgment |
What are the 8 Elements of Reasoning? | Purpose, Question at issue, Concepts, Assumptions, Information, Interpretations, Implications, Point of view |
What are the 8 Intellectual Standards? | Clarity, Accuracy, Precision, Relevance, Depth, Breadth, Logicalness, Fairness |
What is the first Dimension of Decision-Making? | Figure out, and regularly rearticulate, your most fundamental goals, purposes, and needs. |
What is the second Dimension of Decision-Making? | Take problems and decisions one-by-one. |
What is the third Dimension of Decision-Making? | Figure out the implications of alternatives. |
What is the fourth Dimension of Decision-Making? | Figure out the information you need and seek it. |
What is the fifth Dimension of Decision-Making? | Draw reasonable inferences from the information you analyze and interpret. |
What is the sixth Dimension of Decision-Making? | Figure out long- and short-term options and limitations (time, money, power). |
What is the seventh Dimension of Decision-Making? | Consider pros and cons of options. |
What is the eighth Dimension of Decision-Making? | Be strategic in your decision-making. |
What is the ninth Dimension of Decision-Making? | Monitor the implications of your actions and shift strategy if need be. |
What is the first Dimension of Problem-Solving? | Figure out and regularly reevaluate your goals, purposes, and needs. |
What is the second Dimension of Problem-Solving? | Identify your problems explicitly, then analyze them. |
What is the third Dimension of Problem-Solving? | Figure out the information you need, and actively seek that information. |
What is the fourth Dimension of Problem-Solving? | Carefully analyze, interpret, and evaluate the information you collect. |
What is the fifth Dimension of Problem-Solving? | Figure out your options for action and evaluate them. |
What is the sixth Dimension of Problem-Solving? | Adopt a strategic approach to the problem, and follow through on that strategy. |
What is the seventh Dimension of Problem-Solving? | When you act, monitor the implications of your action as they begin to emerge. |
According to Paul and Elder, what are the two components in strategic thinking? | Identification. Recognizing when your thinking is irrational or flawed. Intellectual action. Engaging and challenging your own thinking. |
In analyzing causation, successively ruling out non-casual factors until one correct casual factor remains. This is called: | Process of Elimination |
In analyzing causation, look for a casual factor that is present in one situation but absent in another similar situation. This is called: | Single difference method |
In analyzing causation, look for a single shared factor. This is called: | Common factor method |
In analyzing causation, look for a pattern of variation between a possible cause and a possible effect. This is called: | Concomitant variation |
A systematic, disciplined approach to asking questions aimed at assessing truth. | Socratic questioning |
A scientist discovered that all laboratory hamsters that had been eating lettuce developed Salmonella poisoning. This is an example of causation by: | common factor |
In strategic thinking, recognizing when your thinking is irrational or flawed is which component? | Identification |
In strategic thinking, engaging and challenging your own thinking is which component? | Intellectual action |
To analyze the logic of an article, one can apply: | Elements of Reasoning |
The 2 types of evidence are: | quantitative and qualitative |
What is a A rival cause? | A plausible alternative explanation for why a certain outcome happened |
Analogy | Drawing a comparison between 2 things in order to show a meaningful resemblance between them. |
Intuition | A hunch, "gut feeling," or premonition |
Personal observation | What we see first hand |
Appeal to authority | Justifying a position by citing an expert or authority who supports it |
Case example | A detailed account of a person or event; a striking or dramatic anecdote |
Testimonial | An account of someone else's personal experience |
Survey/questionnaire | A research method or instrument for measuring people's attitudes or beliefs |
Research study | A systematic set of observations collected through scientific methods |
Personal experience | What we experience; what we ourselves do or go through |
What is Quantitative evidence? | Evidence that quantifies an observation or phenomenon—i.e., expresses it as a number or empirical measure. It generally is an outcome of scientific methods |
What is Qualitative evidence? | Evidence that describes or recounts an observation or phenomenon. It communicates understanding and meaning—why and how something happened. It is the result of unstructured or unscientific gathering of information. |
Evidence | Information that is provided to support the dependability of a factual claim |
Qualitative evidence | Evidence that describes the observation or phenomenon and communicates its meaning |
Empirical evidence | Based on or derived from practical experiment and direct observation |
A research study is an example of which kind of evidence? | Quantitative |
Which kind of evidence describes the meaning (i.e., the why and how) of something? | Qualitative |
What are some of the difficulties with surveys as evidence? | Survey questions are sometimes worded ambiguously, Survey responses don't necessarily reflect the actual beliefs of respondents, and Surveys have built-in biases |
Strong analogies entail comparisons between things that have _________ and lack _________. | Relevant similarities/relevant differences |
Which of the following terms describes a plausible alternative explanation for why a particular outcome happened? | Rival cause |
Risk reduction can be expressed in _______ and ________ terms. | relative / absolute |
For statistical data to be valid, the sample must be _______ and sufficiently ________. | random / large |
If a sample is too small or not random enough, the critical thinker must: | be skeptical of the outcome. |
The science of collecting, organizing, and analyzing quantitative date | Statistics |
The average derived by adding up all the values and dividing the sum by the total number of values | Mean |
The gap between the smallest and the largest values in a series of values | Statistical range |
The frequency with which each value in a series of values occurs | Statistical distribution |
A graph that plots the relationship between 2 or more variables by using connected data points | Line graph |
The total or aggregate of something, expressed as a number without relationship to other numbers | Absolute number |
The average represented by the middle value in a series of values | Median |
A study sample that is representative of the whole population | Random sample |
The value that appears most frequently in a series of values | Mode |
Incorrect or erroneous information | Misinformation |
Which of the following graphical forms is well suited to summarizing time series data? | Line graph |
Which of the following terms expresses the value which appears most frequently in a series of values? | Mode |
It is impossible to interpret the significance of a percentage without knowing the _________ on which it is based. | Absolute numbers |
Which report of risk reduction conveys a more significant treatment effect? | Relative |
____________________ involves developing the tools of critical thinking and applying them to current and future challenges. | Deep learning |
When is the optimal time for a learner to apply the Elements of Reasoning to the logic of a subject? | Before the learner has begun his or her course of study |
Inert Information | Taking into the mind information, that, though memorized, we do not understand. |
Activated Knowledge | Taking into the mind, and actively using information that is true and also, when understood insightfully, leads us by implication to more and more knowledge. |
ad hominem | Dismissing an argument by attacking the person who offers it rather than by refuting its reasoning. |
appeal to authority | To justify support for a position by citing an esteemed or well-known figure who supports it. An appeal to authority does not address the merit of the position. |
appeal to experience | Claiming to speak with the "voice of experience" in support of an argument (even when that experience may not be relevant). |
appeal to fear | Citing a threat or possibility of a frightening outcome as the reason for supporting an argument. This threat can be physical or emotional: the idea is to invoke fear. This is sometimes termed "scare tactics." |
appeal to popularity/ popular passions | Citing majority sentiment or popular opinion as the reason for supporting a claim. It assumes that any position favored by the larger crowd must be true or worthy. |
attacking evidence | This approach focuses on discrediting the underlying evidence for an argument and thereby questioning its validity. |
begging the question | Asserting a conclusion that is assumed in the reasoning. The reason given to support the conclusion restates the conclusion. |
denying inconsistencies | Refusing to admit contradictions or inconsistencies when making an argument or defending a position. |
either-or | Assuming only two alternatives when, in reality, there are more than two. It implies that one of two outcomes is inevitable—either x or y. |
evading questions | Avoiding direct and truthful answers to difficult questions through diversionary tactics, vagueness, or deliberately confusing or complex responses. |
faulty analogy | Drawing an invalid comparison between things for the purpose of either supporting or refuting some position. A faulty analogy suggests that because two things are alike in some respect, they must be alike in other respects. |
hard-cruel-world argument | Justifying illegal or unethical practices by arguing that they are necessary to confront a greater evil or threat. |
hasty generalization | Inferring a general proposition about something based on too small a sample or an unrepresentative sample. |
red herring | Introducing an irrelevant point or topic to divert attention from the issue at hand. It is a tactic for confusing the point under debate. |
search for perfect solution | Asserting that a solution is not worth adopting because it does not fix the problem completely. |
slippery slope | To suggest that a step or action, once taken, will lead inevitably to similar steps or actions with presumably undesirable consequences. |
straw man | Distorting or exaggerating an opponent's argument so that it might be more easily attacked. |
thrown-in statistics | The use of irrelevant, misleading, or questionable statistics to support an argument or defend a position. |
two wrongs make a right | Defending or justifying our wrong position or conduct by pointing to a similar wrong done by someone else. |
treating abstracts as reality | Citing abstract concepts (freedom, justice, science) to support an argument or to call for action. |
Bias | A partiality or prejudice that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation |
"Reasoning can only be as sound as the ________________ it is based on." | information |
Actively using information that is false, although we mistakenly think it is true, is an example of: | Activated Ignorance |
A common problem with applying the critical thinking standard of clarity to information is: | the information isn't clear |
The implicit beliefs that support our explicit reasoning about something are: | assumptions |
An unsupported claim is what critical thinking experts refer to as a(n) | Opinion |
Of the five key factors Jefferson Flanders identifies in evaluating research, which one best addresses tracing the origins of the information? | Transparency |
Citing majority sentiment or popular opinion as the reason for supporting a claim is an example of: | appeal to popularity |
Dismissing an argument by attacking the person who offers it rather than by refuting its reasoning is an example of: | ad hominem fallacy |