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
When asked how likely it is for an urban cyclist to get in an accident, a survey respondent remembered that their friend got into a cycling accident last week. This makes them conclude that cycling accidents are fairly likely. Which statement is correct about the source of bias in the passage and how to avoid its impact
-
This is availability bias. It is best avoided by carefully considering whether the examples that come to mind are truly representative of the world at large.
-
This is confirmation bias. It is best avoided by seeking out the best arguments for alternative viewpoints
-
This is availability bias. It is best avoided by going with one's instincts and avoiding too much deliberation
-
This is confirmation bias. It is best avoided by staying fixed in one's beliefs and not allowing outside influences to change one's views
Explanation
Correct Answer:
A.) This is availability bias. It is best avoided by carefully considering whether the examples that come to mind are truly representative of the world at large.
Explanation:
The bias here is availability bias, where the respondent overestimates the likelihood of an event based on the ease with which they recall similar instances (in this case, the friend's cycling accident). To avoid this bias, one should assess whether these instances are representative or if they are outliers.Why the other options are wrong:
B.) This is confirmation bias. It is best avoided by seeking out the best arguments for alternative viewpoints:
Confirmation bias involves seeking information that confirms one's existing beliefs. It’s not the source of the bias in this scenario, where the person is influenced by readily available memories.
C.) This is availability bias. It is best avoided by going with one's instincts and avoiding too much deliberation:
Avoiding deliberation makes the bias worse, not better. Careful consideration is needed to avoid relying on biased examples.
D.) This is confirmation bias. It is best avoided by staying fixed in one's beliefs and not allowing outside influences to change one's views:
This advice would only exacerbate the situation by reinforcing biased thinking and not considering the broader evidence.
If the light is red, then you should stop. The light is not red. Therefore, you should not stop. What form does the above argument have
-
Mdus tollens.
-
Denying the antecedent
-
Modus ponens
-
Affirming the consequent
Explanation
Correct answer:
b. Denying the antecedent
Explanation:
The argument follows the form of denying the antecedent. It is reasoning that because the light is not red (the antecedent is denied), you should not stop. This is a logical fallacy because the light not being red does not necessarily mean you shouldn't stop (there could be other reasons for stopping).
Why the other options are wrong:
a. Modus tollens: This is incorrect because modus tollens involves reasoning where if "If A, then B" is true, and B is false, then A must also be false. This argument does not follow that structure.
c. Modus ponens: This is incorrect because modus ponens involves reasoning where "If A, then B" is true, and A is true, so B must also be true. This argument does not fit this structure.
d. Affirming the consequent: This is incorrect because affirming the consequent would involve reasoning like "If A, then B; B is true; therefore A is true," which is not the case here.
Which sentences reflect strong critical thinking
-
I disagree with my opponent's position on this issue, but I respect my opponents and I am curious to hear their thoughts on the matter.
-
I know that issues can be complicated, and that it is often difficult to determine the best approach to a problem
-
Unlike some others, I do not jump to conclusions, nor am I biased
-
While I am open to discussion on the topic, I am committed to my position because I know it is right.
Explanation
Correct answers:
a. I disagree with my opponent's position on this issue, but I respect my opponents and I am curious to hear their thoughts on the matter.
b. I know that issues can be complicated, and that it is often difficult to determine the best approach to a problem.
Explanation:
These statements reflect strong critical thinking because they show an open-minded approach to issues and an acknowledgment of complexity. The person is willing to engage with differing viewpoints and recognizes the challenge of determining the best solution, which is essential in critical thinking.
Why the other options are wrong:
c. Unlike some others, I do not jump to conclusions, nor am I biased: This option seems more self-congratulatory than reflective. Strong critical thinking involves acknowledging potential biases rather than claiming immunity from them.
d. While I am open to discussion on the topic, I am committed to my position because I know it is right: This shows a closed-minded stance despite claiming openness. Strong critical thinking involves being willing to change one's mind based on new evidence or perspectives, not simply defending a position without room for change.
A report concludes that people who drive red cars get more speeding tickets than people who drive other color cars. Based on this report, an individual concludes that red cars encourage people to drive fast.
Which concept does this conclusion illustrate
-
The principle of charity
-
Anchoring
-
Selection bias
-
Representativeness
Explanation
Correct Answer:
D.) Representativeness
Explanation:
The conclusion assumes that there is a causal relationship between the color of a car and driving behavior. This is an example of the representativeness heuristic, where people mistakenly associate certain characteristics (like a car's color) with specific behaviors (like speeding). In reality, other factors—such as personality traits of drivers who prefer red cars or increased visibility to law enforcement—could explain the pattern.
Why the other options are wrong:
A.) The principle of charity: This principle involves interpreting others’ arguments in the strongest possible way before criticizing them. It is unrelated to this situation, which involves an incorrect causal assumption.
B.) Anchoring: Anchoring is when someone relies too heavily on the first piece of information they receive when making a judgment. This situation does not involve an initial value affecting the conclusion.
C.) Selection bias: Selection bias occurs when the sample used in a study is not representative of the broader population. While the report may have flaws, the individual's conclusion is based on a faulty causal assumption, not an issue of biased sampling.
Which piece of information would be the most helpful to know in assessing the credibility of a news story
-
Whether the political party affiliation of the author is identified
-
Whether the article contains video footage
-
Whether the name of the author and the publication are identified
-
Whether there is widespread agreement with the story on social media
Explanation
Correct answer:
C.) Whether the name of the author and the publication are identified
Explanation:
Knowing the name of the author and the publication is crucial for assessing credibility because it allows you to check the qualifications, expertise, and reliability of the source. It also helps to verify whether the source is reputable and known for producing accurate news.
Why the other options are wrong:
A.) Whether the political party affiliation of the author is identified
While political affiliation can be useful for understanding potential bias, it doesn't necessarily determine credibility. A credible journalist can write from any political viewpoint as long as they adhere to professional standards.
B.) Whether the article contains video footage
Video footage does not guarantee credibility. It is more important to verify the content of the story and the reliability of the source than to focus on multimedia elements.
D.) Whether there is widespread agreement with the story on social media
Widespread agreement on social media doesn't ensure credibility. Social media can amplify misinformation, and consensus among users does not necessarily reflect factual accuracy.
In the above paragraph, which sentence expresses a proposition
-
Where is the president right now?
-
Did the company really close that deal
-
Let's go ask whether the deal was closed.
-
It has had a great year
Explanation
Correct answer:
D. It has had a great year
Explanation:
A proposition is a statement that can be either true or false. "It has had a great year" is a declarative sentence that can be evaluated as true or false, making it a proposition.
Why the other options are wrong:
A. Where is the president right now?: This is a question, and questions do not have a truth value, so it is not a proposition.
B. Did the company really close that deal?: This is also a question, and like other questions, it doesn't express a proposition.
C. Let's go ask whether the deal was closed.: This is a suggestion, not a statement that can be true or false, so it is not a proposition.
Two politicians are engaged in a debate about healthcare. The first politician claims that human beings have a right to access healthcare. The second politician responds that this claim is unclear. He asks, "What do you mean by 'right' and 'access'?" The first politician responds by claiming that voters support accessible healthcare.
Which fallacy is the first politician committing
-
The false dilemma fallacy
-
The red herring fallacy
-
The equivocation fallacy
-
The ad hominem fallacy
Explanation
Correct Answer:
B.) The red herring fallacy
Explanation:
The first politician is committing a red herring fallacy by diverting the argument away from the original question. Instead of clarifying what "right" and "access" mean, the first politician shifts the discussion to public support for accessible healthcare. This is an attempt to distract from the real issue.
Why the other options are wrong:
A.) The false dilemma fallacy: This fallacy involves presenting two options as the only possibilities when there may be more. The first politician does not present only two choices; rather, they shift the focus of the debate.
C.) The equivocation fallacy: This involves using ambiguous language to mislead or confuse the argument. The first politician did not use ambiguous terms in this instance; rather, they deflected the question.
D.) The ad hominem fallacy: This fallacy attacks a person's character or motives instead of addressing the argument itself. The first politician did not attack the second politician but redirected the discussion.
Two colleagues exchange emails regarding an upcoming client meeting, and one of them sent a message with incorrect syntax. How should the receiver handle this message
-
Forward the email to their supervisor
-
Stop responding to their colleague via email
-
Forgive their colleague's oversight
-
Immediately correct their colleague's oversight
Explanation
Correct answer:
c. Forgive their colleague's oversight
Explanation:
It's important to remain professional and not overly focus on small errors, especially in informal communication. Forgiving the oversight helps maintain a positive working relationship and fosters collaboration.
Why the other options are wrong:
a. Forward the email to their supervisor: This is an unnecessary escalation and could cause tension in the workplace over a minor mistake.
b. Stop responding to their colleague via email: This is an extreme reaction that could harm professional relationships unnecessarily.
d. Immediately correct their colleague's oversight: It's better to address errors politely if necessary, but correcting them immediately in a way that may embarrass the colleague is not advisable.
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.
Complete the statement: A formal fallacy is a type of
-
Good structure
-
Good statement
-
Bad argument structure
-
Bad statement
Explanation
Correct answer:
c. Bad argument structure
Explanation:
A formal fallacy occurs when there is a flaw in the logical structure of the argument, making the reasoning invalid. It is specifically related to the form of the argument, not the content.
Why the other options are wrong:
a. Good structure: This is incorrect because a formal fallacy involves a bad or invalid structure, not a good one.
b. Good statement: This is incorrect because a formal fallacy concerns the structure of an argument, not the quality of individual statements.
d. Bad statement: This is incorrect because a formal fallacy refers to structural issues in the argument, not the truth or falsity of specific statements.
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.