Critical Thinking: Reason and Evidence (D265)
Access The Exact Questions for Critical Thinking: Reason and Evidence (D265)
💯 100% Pass Rate guaranteed
🗓️ Unlock for 1 Month
Rated 4.8/5 from over 1000+ reviews
- Unlimited Exact Practice Test Questions
- Trusted By 200 Million Students and Professors
What’s Included:
- Unlock Actual Exam Questions and Answers for Critical Thinking: Reason and Evidence (D265) on monthly basis
- Well-structured questions covering all topics, accompanied by organized images.
- Learn from mistakes with detailed answer explanations.
- Easy To understand explanations for all students.
Free Critical Thinking: Reason and Evidence (D265) Questions
It must be true if she said it. She did not say it. Consequently, it must not be true. What fallacy does the above argument commit
-
Begging the question
-
Affirming the consequent
-
Fallacy fallacy
-
Denying the antecedent
Explanation
Correct answer:
d. Denying the antecedent
Explanation:
This argument commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent, which occurs when the argument assumes that if the antecedent (she said it) is false, the consequent (it must be true) must also be false. The structure is flawed because the truth of the consequent does not depend solely on the antecedent being true.
Why the other options are wrong:
a. Begging the question: This is incorrect because begging the question involves assuming the conclusion within the premises, which isn't the case here. The argument doesn't assume the conclusion upfront.
b. Affirming the consequent: This is incorrect because affirming the consequent involves the fallacy of assuming that if the consequent is true, the antecedent must also be true, which isn't the structure of this argument.
c. Fallacy fallacy: This is incorrect because the argument itself isn't assuming a fallacy is present to invalidate the conclusion; rather, it is a case of flawed reasoning about the relationship between the antecedent and consequent.
Which strategy helps to reduce test anxiety during an exam
-
Cramming the night before the test
-
Staying in the same position during the test
-
Using flashcards to study
-
Taking several long, deep breaths
Explanation
Correct answer:
d. Taking several long, deep breaths
Explanation:
Deep breathing helps to relax the body, reduce stress, and improve focus during the test, making it easier to manage anxiety and perform better.
Why the other options are wrong:
a. Cramming the night before the test: Cramming increases stress and is not an effective way to retain information, often leading to more anxiety.
b. Staying in the same position during the test: This doesn’t address anxiety directly. Movement or a change in posture can sometimes help reduce physical tension.
c. Using flashcards to study: While flashcards are a good study tool, they do not specifically address anxiety during the exam itself.
If I am a soldier, then I am brave. I am not a soldier. Therefore, I am not brave.
-
Affirming the consequent
-
Denying the antecedent
-
Begging the question
-
The fallacy fallacy
Explanation
Correct answer:
B.) Denying the antecedent
Explanation:
This is an example of the denying the antecedent fallacy. In this type of fallacy, the argument assumes that if the antecedent (being a soldier) is false, then the consequent (being brave) must also be false. The argument takes the form:
If A, then B.
Not A.
Therefore, not B.
This is a logical error because there could be other reasons for someone to be brave that do not depend on being a soldier.
Why the other options are wrong:
A.) Affirming the consequent: This fallacy involves assuming that if the consequent is true, the antecedent must be true as well. This is the opposite of the error in the given argument.
C.) Begging the question: This fallacy involves assuming the truth of the conclusion within the premises. This argument does not do that, so it's not an example of begging the question.
D.) The fallacy fallacy: This refers to rejecting an argument solely because it contains a fallacy, even if the conclusion may be correct. This is not the error in the argument presented.
Everyone should vote
-
because it is their duty
-
for the most honest candidate
-
in their assigned district
-
before the deadline
Explanation
Correct answer:
A.) because it is their duty
Explanation:
To form an argument, a premise needs to justify the action or claim made in the statement. "Because it is their duty" provides a reason why everyone should vote, making it a premise that supports the argument.
Why the other options are wrong:
B.) for the most honest candidate: This is a suggestion or condition but does not form an argument in support of voting. It specifies what type of candidate to vote for, rather than justifying why voting is important.
C.) in their assigned district: This is a detail related to logistics but doesn’t explain why voting is important or form an argument for why everyone should vote.
D.) before the deadline: Similar to option C, this is a practical consideration about when to vote, but it does not provide a justification for why everyone should vote in the first place.
To understand how people in a county feel about a proposed increase in property taxes, a person walks door-to-door in his neighborhood, asking people to complete a survey.
Which two statements are true with regard to this statistical sample
-
Not good because it lacks validity
-
Good because it is sound
-
Not good because it is not representative
-
Not good because it is not random
Explanation
Correct Answers:
C.) Not good because it is not representative
D.) Not good because it is not random
Explanation:
The survey is conducted only within one neighborhood, meaning it does not adequately represent the entire county. Additionally, since the person is choosing to survey only nearby residents rather than selecting participants randomly from the entire county, the sample is not random.
Why the other options are wrong:
A.) Not good because it lacks validity: Validity refers to whether the survey accurately measures what it intends to measure. While the study is flawed due to sampling issues, validity typically refers to problems with question wording or bias in measurement rather than sampling.
B.) Good because it is sound: The sample is neither representative nor random, making it unsound for drawing conclusions about the entire county’s opinions
It is wrong to cheat on a test, since cheating on a test is morally bad
-
Affirming the consequent
-
Denying the antecedent
-
Begging the question
-
The fallacy fallacy
Explanation
Correct answer:
C.) Begging the question
Explanation:
This is an example of begging the question. The argument assumes that cheating on a test is morally bad without providing any evidence or reasoning to support it. The premise "cheating on a test is morally bad" is essentially the same as the conclusion "it is wrong to cheat on a test," which means the argument is circular and assumes what it tries to prove.
Why the other options are wrong:
A.) Affirming the consequent: This fallacy occurs when someone assumes that because the consequent is true, the antecedent must be true. The argument does not follow this form.
B.) Denying the antecedent: This fallacy involves assuming that if the antecedent is false, the consequent must also be false. This is not the structure of the given argument.
D.) The fallacy fallacy: This would apply if the argument was dismissed based solely on a logical fallacy, which is not the case here.
Which error may the principle of charity help minimize
-
Representativenes
-
Confirmation bias
-
Denying the antecedent
-
Anchoring and adjustment
Explanation
Correct Answer:
B.) Confirmation bias
Explanation:
The principle of charity involves interpreting others' arguments in their strongest and most reasonable form, rather than dismissing or misrepresenting them to easily refute them. This approach can help minimize confirmation bias by encouraging a more balanced and thoughtful consideration of opposing viewpoints, rather than only focusing on information that confirms one's own beliefs.Why the other options are wrong:
A.) Representativeness:
Representativeness bias occurs when an individual makes judgments based on how similar something is to a stereotype. The principle of charity does not directly address this type of bias.
C.) Denying the antecedent:
Denying the antecedent is a logical fallacy, not a cognitive bias. The principle of charity is not aimed at addressing logical fallacies directly.
D.) Anchoring and adjustment:
Anchoring and adjustment involve using an initial piece of information (the anchor) as a reference for making judgments. The principle of charity is unrelated to the process of adjusting judgments based on initial anchors.
Why is it important to avoid sarcasm in professional online conversations
-
Lack of non-verbal cues can make sarcasm difficult to detect in online
-
Communicating sarcasm in-person is always better than online
-
Sarcasm is not acceptable to use in a professional environment
-
Professionals always need to maintain a serious online profile
Explanation
Correct answer:
a. Lack of non-verbal cues can make sarcasm difficult to detect in online
Explanation:
In online communication, there are no facial expressions or tone of voice to clarify sarcasm, making it easy for messages to be misunderstood or misinterpreted, which can lead to confusion or conflict.
Why the other options are wrong:
b. Communicating sarcasm in-person is always better than online: While sarcasm may be easier to interpret in person, it is still unprofessional in most contexts, whether online or offline.
c. Sarcasm is not acceptable to use in a professional environment: Sarcasm may be acceptable in some casual environments, but it generally reduces professionalism and clarity in communication.
d. Professionals always need to maintain a serious online profile: While professionalism is important, it doesn’t mean communication must always be serious—clarity and respect are key.
Which is the best example of System 1 thinking
-
Researching different candidates' tax plans to determine how to vote
-
Automatically forming a judgment about someone based on how they are dressed
-
Splitting the bill with friends at a restaurant
-
Consulting multiple sources to form an investment plan
Explanation
Correct Answer:
B.) Automatically forming a judgment about someone based on how they are dressed
Explanation:
System 1 thinking is fast, automatic, and intuitive. Automatically forming a judgment about someone's appearance is an example of quick, instinctual thinking without much deliberate reasoning, characteristic of System 1.
Why the other options are wrong:
A.) Researching different candidates' tax plans to determine how to vote:
This involves more deliberative, slower thinking, characteristic of System 2 thinking.
C.) Splitting the bill with friends at a restaurant:
This is typically a simple, automatic task, but it does not involve much judgment or complexity, so it’s not a great example of System 1 thinking in a decision-making context.
D.) Consulting multiple sources to form an investment plan:
This requires careful, deliberate thought, which is more aligned with System 2 thinking
In the past, it has snowed in Alaska every winter for the last 100 years. Therefore, it will probably snow in Alaska next winter. Which terms categorize this inductive argument
-
Strong
-
Weak
-
Cogent
-
Uncogent
Explanation
Correct answer:
a. Strong;
c. Cogent
Explanation:
The argument is strong because the premise provides significant evidence of a regular pattern (snowing in Alaska every winter for the past 100 years), making it likely that it will snow next winter. The past consistency makes the conclusion probable. The argument is cogent because it is both strong (due to the historical pattern) and has true premises. The information about snowfall in Alaska for the past 100 years is factual, which supports the conclusion that it will probably snow next winter.
Why the other options are wrong:
b. Weak: This is incorrect because the argument provides strong evidence based on the historical pattern of snow in Alaska, making it not weak. Weak arguments lack sufficient evidence to support the conclusion.
d. Uncogent: This is incorrect because the argument is cogent. For an argument to be uncogent, it must either be weak or have false premises. Here, the argument is strong and based on true premises, so it is cogent.
How to Order
Select Your Exam
Click on your desired exam to open its dedicated page with resources like practice questions, flashcards, and study guides.Choose what to focus on, Your selected exam is saved for quick access Once you log in.
Subscribe
Hit the Subscribe button on the platform. With your subscription, you will enjoy unlimited access to all practice questions and resources for a full 1-month period. After the month has elapsed, you can choose to resubscribe to continue benefiting from our comprehensive exam preparation tools and resources.
Pay and unlock the practice Questions
Once your payment is processed, you’ll immediately unlock access to all practice questions tailored to your selected exam for 1 month .
Frequently Asked Question
These questions are designed to help students improve their critical thinking skills by evaluating arguments, identifying logical fallacies, and assessing the quality of evidence. They align with PHIL 1020 D265 Critical Thinking: Reason and Evidence.
The questions focus on: Logical fallacies (e.g., appeal to authority, circular reasoning, false cause) Evaluating evidence and reasoning Distinguishing between correlation and causation Identifying weak vs. strong arguments
Students taking PHIL 1020 D265 or anyone interested in improving their reasoning, argument analysis, and critical thinking skills.
These questions help students recognize flawed reasoning, construct stronger arguments, and develop analytical skills essential for academic success in philosophy, law, business, and other disciplines.
New questions are regularly generated to provide fresh challenges and cover different aspects of reasoning and argument evaluation.
You can find additional critical thinking practice questions on ulosca.com, where curated exam prep resources are available.