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
In deductive reasoning, what is the difference between validity and soundness
-
Validity concerns the truth of an argument's premises, but soundness requires a high degree of probability
-
Validity only concerns the structure of an argument, but soundness requires both validity and true premises
-
Validity concerns an argument's probability, but soundness requires clearly defined terms.
-
Validity concerns the inductive strength of an argument, but soundness requires both strength and plausible premises
Explanation
Correct answer:
b. Validity only concerns the structure of an argument, but soundness requires both validity and true premises.
Explanation:
Validity refers to the structure or form of an argument, meaning if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. Soundness, however, requires both the argument to be valid and the premises to actually be true.
Why the other options are wrong:
a. Validity concerns the truth of an argument's premises, but soundness requires a high degree of probability: This is incorrect because validity only concerns the structure, not the truth of the premises. Soundness requires the premises to be true, not just a probability.
c. Validity concerns an argument's probability, but soundness requires clearly defined terms: This is incorrect because validity doesn’t concern probability. It’s about whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
d. Validity concerns the inductive strength of an argument, but soundness requires both strength and plausible premises: This is incorrect because validity pertains to deductive reasoning, not inductive strength. It focuses on the structure, not the strength or plausibility of the premises.
Which strategy helps students improve retention from a textbook to study for an exam
-
Survey assigned material before an exam
-
Read assigned material at least five times
-
Highlight complete sentences while reading
-
Annotate details with different colors while reading
Explanation
Correct answer:
a. Survey assigned material before an exam
Explanation:
Surveying the material involves skimming through headings, subheadings, and summary sections before diving into a detailed study, which helps with retention and understanding of the material.
Why the other options are wrong:
b. Read assigned material at least five times: Repetition can help, but it’s not as effective as surveying the material first. Re-reading without an initial survey may lead to ineffective studying.
c. Highlight complete sentences while reading: Highlighting full sentences can be ineffective if overdone; it doesn’t promote active learning or deep understanding.
d. Annotate details with different colors while reading: Color-coded annotations can be helpful, but they are not as efficient for retention compared to a strategy of surveying the material first.
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.
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
My nutritionist said that "a vegetarian diet can be healthy." However, it is absurd to say that we can live on lettuce and carrots alone. We are not rabbits. Humans need protein.
Which fallacy of relevance does the above argument commit
-
Red herring
-
Ad hominem
-
Straw person
-
Appeal to authority
Explanation
Correct Answer:
C.) Straw person
Explanation:
The argument commits a straw person fallacy because it misrepresents the nutritionist's position. Instead of addressing the idea that a vegetarian diet can be healthy, the argument distorts it by claiming that the nutritionist advocates for a diet of only lettuce and carrots, which is not a reasonable representation of a balanced vegetarian diet.
Why the other options are wrong:
A.) Red herring: A red herring is a distraction from the main issue. This argument does not distract; it misrepresents the nutritionist's point.
B.) Ad hominem: This fallacy attacks the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. The argument here does not attack the nutritionist personally, but instead distorts their claim.
D.) Appeal to authority: This fallacy occurs when an argument relies on the authority of someone without addressing the argument itself. The nutritionist's opinion is referenced, but the issue lies in the misrepresentation of their position, not blindly trusting their authority.
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.
If I set a world speed record, then I will win the race. I won the race. So, I must have set a world speed record. What form does the above argument have
-
Affirming the antecedent
-
Denying the antecedent
-
Affirming the consequent
-
Denying the consequent
Explanation
Correct answer:
c. Affirming the consequent
Explanation:
The argument follows the structure of affirming the consequent. It assumes that because the race was won (the consequent), the world speed record must have been set (the antecedent). This is a logical error because winning the race does not necessarily imply setting a world speed record.
Why the other options are wrong:
a. Affirming the antecedent: This is incorrect because affirming the antecedent would mean that the argument correctly infers the conclusion from the truth of the premise. In this case, the conclusion is drawn incorrectly from the consequent, not the antecedent.
b. Denying the antecedent: This is incorrect because denying the antecedent would involve reasoning like "If A, then B; not A; therefore not B." This form is not present in the argument.
d. Denying the consequent: This is incorrect because denying the consequent would involve reasoning like "If A, then B; not B; therefore not A." The argument does not deny the consequent but instead assumes it leads to the antecedent.
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.
Which action can simply be taken in many instances to gain a clearer, more accurate understanding of a situation
-
Checking social media
-
Affirming the consequent
-
Narrowing the topic
-
Broadening our perspective
Explanation
Correct Answer:
D.) Broadening our perspective
Explanation:
Broadening our perspective allows us to consider multiple viewpoints, analyze different sources of information, and reduce the influence of cognitive biases. This leads to a clearer and more accurate understanding of a situation.
Why the other options are wrong:
A.) Checking social media: While social media can provide information, it is often biased, misleading, or incomplete. It is not a reliable method for gaining an accurate understanding.
B.) Affirming the consequent: This is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes that because a particular outcome is observed, the only possible cause is the one they assume. It does not lead to a clearer understanding.
C.) Narrowing the topic: While narrowing a topic can help focus research, it does not necessarily provide a broader or more accurate understanding of a situation. It may actually limit the information considered.
All Texans are Americans. Ana is an American. Therefore, Ana is a Texan. Which terms categorize this deductive argument
-
Valid
-
Invalid
-
Sound
Explanation
Correct answer:
a. Valid;
d. Unsound
Explanation:
The argument is valid because, in the form of a deductive syllogism, if all Texans are Americans and Ana is an American, it doesn't logically follow that Ana must be a Texan. The structure of the argument is valid, even though the conclusion is incorrect due to incorrect premises. The argument is unsound because, although it is valid, it is not based on true premises. The premise "All Texans are Americans" is true, but the argument mistakenly assumes that all Americans are Texans, which is false. Thus, the argument is unsound.
Why the other options are wrong:
b. Invalid: This is incorrect because the argument is valid in form. The premises do not lead to a logically guaranteed conclusion, but the structure itself is valid.
c. Sound: This is incorrect because, for an argument to be sound, the premises must be true, and in this case, the argument relies on a false premise that all Americans are Texans. Therefore, it is not sound.
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.