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
Which phrases contain conclusions of this argument
-
Flying cars will relieve traffic congestion
-
The research and development of such vehicles will be expensive
-
The government should encourage industry to develop flying cars
-
Banks should help fund industry research
Explanation
Correct answer:
C.) The government should encourage industry to develop flying cars
D.) Banks should help fund industry research
Explanation:
Conclusions are statements that logically follow from the premises or reasons provided in the argument.
"The government should encourage industry to develop flying cars" and "Banks should help fund industry research" are conclusions because they are the suggested actions resulting from the premises.
Why the other options are wrong:
A.) Flying cars will relieve traffic congestion: This is a premise, not a conclusion. It provides a reason for the argument that follows.
B.) The research and development of such vehicles will be expensive: This is another premise, not a conclusion. It is an additional reason that supports the argument.
If I am bald, then I am old. I am old. Therefore, I am bald
-
Begging the question
-
The fallacy fallacy
-
Denying the antecedent
-
Affirming the consequent
Explanation
Correct answer:
D.) Affirming the consequent
Explanation:
This is an example of the affirming the consequent fallacy. In this logical error, the argument assumes that because the consequent (being old) is true, the antecedent (being bald) must also be true. The structure of this fallacy is as follows:
If A, then B.
B is true.
Therefore, A must be true.
This is flawed because B being true does not necessarily mean that A is the cause of B. There could be other reasons for B to be true.
Why the other options are wrong:
A.) Begging the question: This fallacy involves assuming the truth of the conclusion within the premises, essentially arguing in a circle. This is not what happens in this argument.
B.) The fallacy fallacy: This refers to rejecting an argument just because it contains a fallacy, even if the conclusion might be correct. This is not relevant to the argument presented.
C.) Denying the antecedent: This fallacy occurs when the argument incorrectly assumes that if the antecedent is false, the consequent must also be false. This is not the case here, where the consequent is true but does not guarantee the antecedent.
Jamie's argument against the conspiracy theorist commits the straw figure fallacy. So, clearly Jamie is wrong, and the conspiracy is real. What logical error does the above argument commit
-
Begging the question
-
Affirming the consequent
-
Fallacy fallacy
-
Denying the antecedent
Explanation
Correct answer:
c. Fallacy fallacy
Explanation:
This argument commits the fallacy fallacy, which occurs when one assumes that because an argument contains a fallacy, the conclusion must be false. In this case, just because Jamie's argument commits a straw figure fallacy does not automatically mean the conspiracy is real.
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.
b. Affirming the consequent: This is incorrect because affirming the consequent occurs when an argument assumes that if the consequent is true, then the antecedent must also be true. This is not the structure of the argument in question.
d. Denying the antecedent: This is incorrect because denying the antecedent involves the fallacy of assuming that if the antecedent is false, the consequent must also be false. This is not the issue in this case.
Usually when the audience comes out of a theater laughing, that means the film was funny. The audience leaving the theater after this film is laughing. So the film probably is funny
-
Valid
-
Sound
-
Inductive
-
Deductive
Explanation
Correct answer:
C.) Inductive
Explanation:
This argument is inductive because it involves making a probable conclusion based on the observation of a pattern. The fact that the audience is laughing suggests the film is probably funny, but it is not a guarantee, which makes this reasoning inductive.
Why the other options are wrong:
A.) Valid: Validity applies to deductive reasoning, not inductive. This argument is based on probability, not a logical guarantee.
B.) Sound: Soundness applies to deductive arguments that are both valid and have true premises. Since this is an inductive argument, the term "sound" does not apply.
D.) Deductive: Deductive reasoning involves drawing a conclusion that must be true if the premises are true, but this argument only suggests a probable conclusion, not a certainty.
Which of the following is the most relevant question to ask when seeking to identify an unwarranted statistical generalization
-
Does the generalization follow at least one rule of deductive logic?
-
Does the generalization confirm what you already believe?
-
Is the generalization consistent with popular beliefs in your society?
-
Is the generalization based on a sufficient number of relevant samples?
Explanation
Correct Answer:
D.) Is the generalization based on a sufficient number of relevant samples?
Explanation:
An unwarranted statistical generalization often results from relying on an insufficient or irrelevant sample. Asking whether the generalization is based on a sufficient number of relevant samples is key to determining whether the generalization is valid.
Why the other options are wrong:
A.) Does the generalization follow at least one rule of deductive logic?:
This is more relevant to deductive reasoning, but not necessarily to the validity of a statistical generalization.
B.) Does the generalization confirm what you already believe?:
This question refers to confirmation bias, which can undermine objective reasoning but doesn't directly address the validity of the generalization itself.
C.) Is the generalization consistent with popular beliefs in your society?:
Popularity does not equate to correctness. A generalization should be based on evidence, not societal trends or common opinions.
Consider the following argument: Smith inspected 990 jellybeans in the jar. Each of the beans Smith inspected is red. Therefore, all 1000 of the beans in the jar are red. Which kind of argument is this
-
A strong argument
-
Deductive argument
-
A weak argument
-
A valid argument
Explanation
Correct Answer:
A.) A strong argument
Explanation:
This is an inductive argument because it makes a generalization based on a sample (990 jellybeans) to infer something about a larger population (all 1000 jellybeans). The argument is strong because the sample size (990 out of 1000) is large enough to make it very likely that the conclusion is true, even though it is not guaranteed. The more jellybeans Smith inspects, the stronger the argument becomes.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong:
B.) Deductive argument
Why it’s wrong: A deductive argument is one where the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Here, the premises do not guarantee that all 1000 jellybeans are red; they suggest it is likely, but they don't ensure it, so the argument is not deductive.
C.) A weak argument
Why it’s wrong: The argument is strong, not weak. Given the large number of jellybeans inspected (990 out of 1000), this is a strong inductive argument, not weak.
D.) A valid argument
Why it’s wrong: Validity applies to deductive arguments, where the conclusion must follow from the premises. In this case, it is not a deductive argument, so the concept of validity does not apply.
Which statement is the conclusion of the above argument
-
The exam must be revised and re-administered.
-
Some students in the class scored higher than 70% on the exam
-
Exams are supposed to accurately assess student learning
-
Most students in the class scored less than 70% on the exam
Explanation
Correct answer:
A. The exam must be revised and re-administered.
Explanation:
The conclusion is the statement that logically follows from the premises. In this argument, the conclusion is that the exam should be revised and re-administered because it was too difficult to accurately assess student learning. This is based on the premise that most students scored less than 70% and that exams should accurately assess student learning.
Why the other options are wrong:
B. This is a statement of fact about some students' performance, not a conclusion.
C. This is a premise that explains why exams need to accurately assess learning, but it is not the conclusion.
D. This is also a premise providing the basis for the argument but not the conclusion itself.
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.
What is the value of using central databases for scholarly literature as a skill for lifelong learning
-
Users can read the latest published research in real time.
-
A ranking system is used for classifying scientific rigor of articles
-
Users can connect with graduate schools and potential employers
-
Every article is freely accessible to the public
Explanation
Correct answer:
a. Users can read the latest published research in real time.
Explanation:
Central databases provide access to up-to-date research, allowing users to stay current with the latest findings in their fields, which is crucial for lifelong learning.
Why the other options are wrong:
b. A ranking system is used for classifying scientific rigor of articles: While databases often feature rankings, this is not the primary value—they mainly provide access to research.
c. Users can connect with graduate schools and potential employers: This is typically not the main function of scholarly databases, which focus on literature access.
d. Every article is freely accessible to the public: Many articles are behind paywalls or require institutional access, so not every article is freely available.
Which of the following are reasons for applying the principle of charity
-
It makes debates easier to win.
-
It is morally right to give others the benefit of the doubt
-
It allows for a clearer understanding of the issue
-
It makes one look good by making one's opponent look weak
Explanation
Correct Answers:
B.) It is morally right to give others the benefit of the doubt.
C.) It allows for a clearer understanding of the issue.
Explanation:
The principle of charity involves interpreting others' arguments in the best light, which is morally right and helps clarify the discussion by allowing for better understanding and constructive debate.
Why the other options are wrong:
A.) It makes debates easier to win.
The goal of applying the principle of charity is not to win debates but to understand and engage with ideas fairly.
D.) It makes one look good by making one's opponent look weak.
The principle of charity seeks fair and respectful engagement, not exploiting the opponent to make oneself appear superior.
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.