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 100 + 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.
Your Complete Learning Package: Activated Critical Thinking: Reason and Evidence (D265) : Practice Questions & Answers
Free Critical Thinking: Reason and Evidence (D265) Questions
Which statements are the premises of the above argument?
-
We cannot go out until the restaurant opens.
-
We are trying to save money
-
We should just hang out here until closer to dinner
-
We can have a good time without spending money
Explanation
Correct answers:
A. We cannot go out until the restaurant opens. & B. We are trying to save money.
Explanation: |
The premises of an argument are the statements that provide support or reasons for the conclusion. In this case, "We cannot go out until the restaurant opens" and "We are trying to save money" are both reasons given for why the group should hang out until dinner.
Why the other options are wrong:
C. This is the conclusion of the argument, not a premise. It follows from the premises as the suggested action.
D. While it might be implied, it is not directly stated as a premise in this specific argument. The premises focus on timing and saving money.
Which type of generalization is rationally acceptable
-
A generalization treated as if there were no exceptions, when in fact there is at least one exception
-
A generalization based on an adequate number of relevant cases
-
A generalization based on an unfair stereotype
-
A generalization based on an insufficient sample
Explanation
Correct Answer:
B.) A generalization based on an adequate number of relevant cases
Explanation:
A generalization is rationally acceptable when it is based on an adequate and relevant sample of cases. This ensures that the generalization is both reliable and reasonable.
Why the other options are wrong:
A.) A generalization treated as if there were no exceptions, when in fact there is at least one exception:
This is an example of an overgeneralization, which is logically flawed because it ignores exceptions.
C.) A generalization based on an unfair stereotype:
This represents a biased and inaccurate generalization that doesn't account for individual differences, making it an unreasonable form of generalization.
D.) A generalization based on an insufficient sample:
This is an hasty generalization, where conclusions are drawn from an inadequate sample size, making the generalization unreliable and unwarranted.
Jordan says, "I am the best student at our high school; I am the tallest and most athletic, and I have the best car." Taylor, Jordan's best friend, totally agrees
-
Weak argument
-
Proposition
-
Inference
-
Strong argument
Explanation
Correct answers:
A.) Weak argument
B.) Proposition
Explanation:
A.) Weak argument: Jordan's comments are a list of claims but lack supporting evidence or reasoning, making them a weak argument.
B.) Proposition: The individual statements made by Jordan are propositions because they can be true or false (e.g., "I am the best student").
Why the other options are wrong:
C.) Inference: An inference would require reasoning to arrive at a conclusion, which is not present in Jordan's comments; they are direct statements, not inferences.
D.) Strong argument: Jordan’s statements lack evidence, reasoning, or a logical structure to qualify as a strong argument.
An anonymous survey is conducted to determine what percentage of the population of married couples lies to their spouse, so the following survey question is formulated: "I don't lie to my spouse because that would be wrong," and participants are asked to select "true" or "false."
Which statement is true with respect to this study question
-
Not good, because the question may lead participants to answer in a certain way
-
Not good, because it fails to consider the participant's motives
-
Good, because it addresses the central issue in the study
-
Good, because the study is anonymous
Explanation
Correct Answer:
A.) Not good, because the question may lead participants to answer in a certain way.
Explanation:
The survey question is leading and biased because it embeds a moral judgment ("because that would be wrong"). This phrasing may pressure respondents to answer "true" to avoid seeming immoral, thereby skewing the results. A neutral phrasing, such as "Have you ever lied to your spouse?" without additional moral implications, would yield more reliable data.
Why the other options are wrong:
B.) Not good, because it fails to consider the participant's motives: While understanding motives could be valuable, the primary issue is the bias in the question itself, which influences how participants respond.
C.) Good, because it addresses the central issue in the study: While the question relates to the study's goal, its biased framing makes it a poor choice. A good question should be neutral and avoid pushing respondents toward a particular answer.
D.) Good, because the study is anonymous: Anonymity may reduce social desirability bias, but it does not fix the problem of leading wording, which still pressures respondents to answer in a certain way.
A young person is wearing a tie-dyed shirt and driving a Volkswagen (VW) bus. Based on this, another individual concludes that this person has liberal political views.
Which bias does this reasoning reflect
-
Availability bias
-
Anchoring and adjustment bias
-
Confirmation bias
-
Representativeness bias
Explanation
Correct Answer:
D.) Representativeness bias
Explanation:
Representativeness bias occurs when people judge the probability of something based on how well it fits a stereotype rather than considering actual statistical likelihood. In this case, the individual assumes that wearing a tie-dyed shirt and driving a VW bus means the young person must have liberal political views, even though these traits do not necessarily determine political beliefs.
Why the other options are wrong:
A.) Availability bias: This bias happens when people judge the likelihood of an event based on how easily they can recall similar examples. The conclusion here is based on stereotypes, not personal recall of past instances.
B.) Anchoring and adjustment bias: This bias occurs when someone relies too heavily on an initial piece of information (the "anchor") and fails to adjust their thinking sufficiently. There is no clear "anchor" being used in this reasoning.
C.) Confirmation bias: Confirmation bias happens when people favor information that supports their existing beliefs and ignore contrary evidence. In this case, the person is making an assumption rather than selectively interpreting evidence to confirm a pre-existing belief.
If it is the hottest day of the year, then the ice will melt. The ice melted. Therefore, it must have been the hottest day of the year. What fallacy does the above argument commit
-
Begging the question
-
Affirming the consequent
-
Fallacy fallacy
-
Denying the antecedent
Explanation
Correct answer:
b. Affirming the consequent
Explanation:
This argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It assumes that because the ice melted (the consequent), it must have been the hottest day of the year (the antecedent). This is incorrect because the ice could have melted for other reasons besides it being the hottest day.
Why the other options are wrong:
a. Begging the question: This is incorrect because begging the question involves assuming the conclusion in the premises, which is not happening in this argument.
c. Fallacy fallacy: This is incorrect because the fallacy fallacy refers to assuming that because an argument is flawed, the conclusion must be false. It does not apply here, as the conclusion might still be true even though the reasoning is faulty.
d. Denying the antecedent: This is incorrect because denying the antecedent would involve incorrectly asserting that if the antecedent is false, the consequent must also be false, which is not the case here.
Critical thinkers are constantly alert for possible biases in their own thinking. When the potential for bias is present, which two actions may strong critical thinkers take to help minimize bias in their thinking
-
Employ heuristics for decision-making
-
Look for consensus on social media
-
Broaden their sources of information
-
Slow their thought process
Explanation
Correct Answers:
C.) Broaden their sources of information
D.) Slow their thought process
Explanation:
Strong critical thinkers minimize bias by considering multiple perspectives and sources of information rather than relying on a single viewpoint. Slowing down the thought process helps them analyze information more carefully and avoid impulsive or emotionally driven decisions.
Why the other options are wrong:
A.) Employ heuristics for decision-making: Heuristics are mental shortcuts that can sometimes lead to bias rather than minimize it. While useful in some contexts, they often oversimplify complex issues.
B.) Look for consensus on social media: Social media often reinforces biases rather than challenges them. It tends to create echo chambers where people are exposed to opinions that align with their own, rather than providing balanced perspectives.
Which is a simple proposition that is expressed in the above paragraph
-
The new employee wants to succeed.
-
How many times have we heard the manager complain about tardiness?
-
The employees look out for each other.
-
If the new employee wants to succeed, then they need to show up on time
Explanation
Correct answer:
A. The new employee wants to succeed.
Explanation:
A simple proposition is a statement that conveys a single, declarative idea that can be judged as either true or false. "The new employee wants to succeed" expresses a straightforward assertion about the new employee and is thus a simple proposition.
Why the other options are wrong:
B. This is a question, which cannot be classified as a proposition because it is not a declarative statement that can be evaluated as true or false.
C. This statement is more of a general idea and not a single declarative proposition. It is also not directly related to the paragraph’s content in a way that makes it a simple proposition.
D. This is a conditional proposition (if/then structure), which is more complex than a simple proposition.
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.
Everyone who lives in Los Angeles lives in California. Everyone who lives in California lives in the United States. Therefore, everyone who lives in Los Angeles lives in the United States. Which terms categorize this deductive argument
-
Valid
-
Invalid
-
Sound
-
Unsound
Explanation
Correct Answer:
A.) Valid
C.) Sound
Explanation:
This is a deductive argument. A valid argument is one where if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. In this case, the conclusion logically follows from the premises: if everyone in Los Angeles lives in California, and everyone in California lives in the United States, it must be true that everyone in Los Angeles lives in the United States. Since the premises are also true, the argument is not only valid but also sound. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong:
B.) Invalid: The argument is valid because the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Therefore, it cannot be categorized as invalid.
D.) Unsound: An argument is unsound if it is either invalid or if one or more premises are false. In this case, the argument is valid and the premises are true, so it is not unsound.
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.