KEY-TERM for CRITICAL THINKING (Midterm Exam)

Key-words Chapter Page Description

4 tests to simplify whether 3 57 • the indicator word test
inductive or deductive • the strict necessity test
• the common pattern test
• the principle of charity test

A
Accuracy 1 3
Affirming the consequent 3 64 Its pattern is as follows:
If A then B.
B.
Therefore, A.
Antecedent 2 41 The first part, the statement(s) following the word if
Argument 2 29 A group of statements, one or more of which (called
the premises) are intended to prove or support another
statement (called the
conclusion)
Argument Based on 3 66 The conclusion is claimed to depend largely or entirely
Mathematics on some mathematical calculation or measurement
(perhaps in conjunction with one or more
nonmathematical premises)
Argument by Elimination 3 66 An argument by elimination seeks to logically rule out
various possibilities until only a single possibility remains
Argument from Analogy 3 70 An analogy is a comparison of two or more things that
are claimed to be alike in some relevant respect. In an
argument from analogy, the conclusion is claimed to
depend on
an analogy (i.e., a comparison or similarity) between two
or more things
Argument from Authority 3 68 An argument from authority asserts a claim and then
supports that claim by citing some presumed authority or
witness who has said that the claim is true.
Argument from Defi nition 3 67 The conclusion is presented as being “true by defi
nition,” that is, as following simply by defi nition from
some key word or phrase used in the argument
Assumptions 1 16 Something we take for granted, something we believe to
be true without any proof or conclusive evidence

B
Barriers to critical thinking 1 10
Benefit of critical thinking 1 7

C
Categorical statement 9 225 Makes a claim about the relationship between two or
more categories or classes of things
Categorical syllogism 9 237 All the statements in the argument are categorical
statements
Categorical Syllogism
Causal Argument
Chain arguments
Characteristics of critical
thinker
Clarity
Cogent
argument
Common patterns of
deductive reasoning
COMMON PATTERNS OF
INDUCTIVE REASONING
Common Stylistic Variants
of "All S are P"
Common Stylistic Variants
of "No S are P"
Common Stylistic Variants
of "Some S are not P"
Common Stylistic Variants
of "Some S are P"
Completeness
Compound statement
Conclusion
Conclusion indicators
Conditional statement
Conformism
Consequent
Consistency
3 65 A categorical syllogism may be defi ned as a three-line
argument in which each statement begins with the word
all, some, or no.
3 68 A causal argument asserts or denies that something is
the cause of something else.
3 63 Consist of three conditional statements that link together
in the following way:
If A then B.
If B then C.
Therefore, if A then C.
1 25
1 2
3 80 If an argument both is inductively strong and has all true
premises, it is said to be a cogent argument
3 62 five common patterns of deductive reasoning:
• hypothetical syllogism
• categorical syllogism
• argument by elimination
• argument based on mathematics
• argument from definition
3 67 Six common patterns of inductive reasoning:
• inductive generalization
• predictive argument
• argument from authority
• causal argument
• statistical argument
• argument from analogy
9 233
9 235
9 235
9 235
1 6
10 253 Consists of two or more statements, each of which can
separately be considered either true or false
2 29 The statement in an argument that the premises are
intended to prove or support
2 33 Indicate that conclusions are being offered
2 41 An if-then statement
1 14 Our tendency to follow the crowd—that is, to conform
(often unthinkingly) to authority or to group standards of
conduct and belief
2 41 The second part, the statement(s) following the word
then
1 4
Critical Thinking 1 1 General term given to a wide range of cognitive skills and
intellectual dispositions needed to effectively identify,
analyze,and evaluate arguments and truth claims
Crirical thinking in 1 9
workplace
Critical thinking in 1 8 Understanding the arguments and beliefs of others,
classroom critically evaluating those arguments and beliefs,
developing and defending one’s own well-supported
arguments and beliefs
Critical thinking in life 1 9
Critical thinking standard 1 2
Cultural moral relativism 1 20
Cultural moral relativist 1 21 One who maintains the following thesis: Whatever
members of a culture believe is morally right and good is
morally right and good for them
Cultural relativism 1 19 View that truth is a matter of social or cultural opinion
Cutural moral relavism( 2 1 23 Ethical disagreement and the value of tolerance
main reasons)
Cutural moral relavism( 1 23
serious problem)

D
Deduction indicator words 3 57 Certainly, it logically follows that,
definitely, it is logical to conclude that,
absolutely, this logically implies that,
conclusively, this entails that
Deductive arguments 3 53 Try to prove their conclusions
with rigorous, inescapable logic
Deductive arguments 3 55 Show that their conclusions must be
true given the premises asserted
DEDUCTIVE VALIDITY 3 73 An argument in which it is impossible for all the premises
to be true and the conclusion false. Put another way, a
valid deductive argument (or valid argument for short) is
an argument in which these conditions apply:
If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
The premises provide logically conclusive grounds for the
truth of the conclusion.
It is logically inconsistent to assert all the premises as
true and deny the conclusion. "some valid arguments
have obviously false premises and a false conclusion,
Some valid arguments have false premises and a true
conclusion., some valid arguments have true premises
and a true conclusion" . No valid argument can have all
true premises and a false conclusion
Denying the antecedent 3 64 Denying the antecedent arguments have the following
pattern:
If A then B.
Not A.
Therefore, not B.
denying the consequent” 3 63 Consist of one conditional premise, a second premise
that denies (i.e., asserts to be false) the consequent of
the conditional, and a conclusion that denies the
antecedent of the conditional. Here is an example:
If we’re in Sacramento, then we’re in California.
We’re not in California.
Therefore, we’re not in Sacramento
Disjunction 10 271 Two or more statements set apart, usually by the word
or

E
Egocentrism 1 11 Tendency to see reality as centered on oneself
Exceptions to the Strict 3 61 An argument in which the conclusion does not follow
Necessity Test necessarily from the premises should nonetheless be
treated as deductive if either
1. the language or context makes clear that the arguer
intended to offer a logically conclusive argument, but the
argument, in fact, is not logically conclusive;
or
2. the argument has a pattern of reasoning that is
characteristically deductive, and nothing else about the
argument indicates clearly that the argument is meant to
be inductive.
Explanandum 2 44 The statement that is explained
Explanans 2 44 The statement that does the explaining
Explanation 2 44 Show why something is the case, not to prove that it is
the case

F
Fairness 1 7 Openminded, impartial, and free of distorting biases and
preconceptions

G
Group bias 1 13 The tendency to see one’s own group (nation, tribe, sect,
peer group, and the like) as being inherently better than
others

H
Hasty generalization 1 16 In which one draws a conclusion about a large class of
things (in this case, people) from a small sample
How to Distinguish 3 62 1. If the conclusion follows necessarily from the
Deductive from Inductive premises, the
Arguments argument should always be treated as deductive.
2. If the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the
premises, the argument should be treated as inductive
unless (a) the language or context of the argument
makes clear that the argument is deductive or (b) the
argument has a pattern of reasoning that is
characteristically deductive, 3. If the
argument has a pattern of reasoning that is
characteristically deductive, the argument should be
treated as deductive unlessthere is clear evidence that
the argument is intended to be inductive.
4. If the argument has a pattern of reasoning that is
characteristically inductive, the argument should be
treated as inductive unless there is clear evidence that
the argument is intended to be deductive.
5. Arguments often contain indicator words—words like
probably, necessarily, and certainly —that provide clues
in determining whether an argument is deductive or
inductive. Keep in mind, however, that indicator words
are often used loosely or improperly.
6. If there is signifi cant doubt about whether an
argument is deductive or inductive, always interpret the
argument in the way most favorable to the arguer.
How to translate ordinary 9 231
sentences into standard
categorical form
Hypothetical Syllogism 3 62 A syllogism is a three-line argument, that is, an argument
that consists of exactly two premises and a conclusion. A
hypothetical syllogism is a syllogism that contains at least
one hypothetical or conditional (i.e., if-then ) premise
Other common varieties of hypothetical syllogisms
include
• chain argument
• modus tollens (denying the consequent)
• denying the antecedent
• affirming the consequent

I
Illustration 2 43 Intended to provide examples of a claim, rather than
prove or support the claim
indicator word test 3 57 Often extremely helpful. Nevertheless, two
limitations of the test should be noted: many arguments
contain no deduction or induction indicator
words, arguers often use indicator words loosely or
improperly
Indicator words 2 33 Words or phrases that provide clues that premises or
conclusions are being put forward
induction indicator words: 3 57 Probably, one would expect that,
likely, it is a good bet that,
it is plausible to suppose that, chances are that,
it is reasonable to assume that, odds are that
Inductive arguments 3 53 Try to show that their
conclusions are plausible or likely given the premise(s).
Inductive arguments 3 55 Claim that their conclusions are likely or probable given
the premises offered
Inductive Generalization 3 68 Term is used in critical thinking, is a statement that
attributes some characteristic to all or most members of
a given class
Inductive generalization 3 68 An argument in which a generalization is claimed to be
probably true based on information about some
members of a particular class
Invalid deductive argument 3 75 A deductive argument in which the conclusion does not
follow necessarily from the premises is said to be an
invalid deductive argument. If the argument’s premises
were true, would the conclusion also have to be true? If
the answer is yes, the argument is valid. If the answer is
no, the argument is invalid.

K
Key Differences between 3 56 Deductive arguments claim that . . .: If the premises are
Deductive and Inductive true, then the conclusion must be true. - The conclusion
Arguments follows necessarily from the premises, - It is impossible
for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false., -
It is logically inconsistent to assert the premises and
deny the conclusion;
if you accept the premises, you must accept the
conclusion.; Inductive arguments claim that . . .: - If the
premises are true, then the conclusion is probably true.,
- The conclusion follows probably from the premises., - It
is unlikely for the premises to be true and the conclusion
false., - Although it is logically consistent to assert the
premises and deny the conclusion, the conclusion is
probably true if the premises are true.

L
Logical consistency 1 4 Involves saying or believing inconsistent things (i.e.,
things that cannot both or all be true) about a particular
matter
Logical contradiction 3 58
Logical corectness 1 6 Draw well-founded conclusions from the beliefs we hold

M
Modus ponens 3 59 This is a logically reliable pattern of reasoning, arguments
of this pattern should always be treated
as deductive.
Modus ponens is one very common pattern of deductive
reasoning
Modus tollens 3 63 Arguments have the following pattern:
If A then B.
Not B.
Therefore, not A.
Moral subjectivism 1 20 View that what is morally right and good for an individual

N
Negation 10 261 The use of the word not (or an equivalent word or
phrase) to deny a statement

O
Ought imperative 2 31 A sentence that has the form of an imperative or
command but is intended to assert a value or ought
judgment about what is good or bad or right or wrong
Overconfidence 1 12 Obstacle to genuine personal and intellectual growth

P
Physically possible 3 58
Practical consistency 1 4 Involves saying one thing and doing another
Precision 1 3
Predicate term 9 231 A word or phrase that names a class and that serves as
the subject complement of the sentence
Predictive Argument 3 68 A prediction is a statement about what may or will
happen in the future. In a predictive argument, a
prediction is defended with reasons. Predictive
arguments are among the most common patterns of
inductive reasoning
Premise indicators 2 33 Indicate that premises are being offered
Premises 2 29 Statements in an argument offered as evidence or
reasons why we should accept another statement, the
conclusion

Q
Quantifiers 9 231 They all begin with the word all, no, or some

R
Relativism 1 19 The view that truth is a matter of opinion
Relevance 1 3
Report 2 40 Convey information about a subject
Rhetorical question 2 31 A sentence that has the grammatical form of a question
but is meant to be understood as a statement
 S
Self confidence 1 12 Grounded in genuine accomplishment is an important
element of success
Self- serving bias 1 12 Tendency to overrate oneself—to see oneself as better in
some respect than one actually is
Self-interestes thinking 1 11 Tendency to accept and defend beliefs that harmonize
with one’s self-interest
Simple statement 10 253 Consists of just one sentence that sensibly can be
regarded as either true or false
Sociocentrism 1 13 Group-centered thinking
Sound deductive 3 77 Deductive arguments that combine both of these
arguments desirable features—that is, deductive arguments that are
both valid and have all true premises—are called sound
deductive arguments
Statement 2 29 A sentence that can be viewed as either true or false.
Statistical Argument 3 69 A statistical argument rests on statistical evidence—that
is, evidence that some percentage of some group or class
has some particular characteristic
Stereotype 1 16 Individual people have all been stamped from one plate
Strong inductive argument 3 78 A well-reasoned inductive argument is called a strong
inductive argument.
More precisely, in a strong inductive argument, the
conclusion follows probably from the premises. Some
strong arguments have false premises and a probably
false conclusion. Some inductively strong arguments
have false premises and a probably true conclusion.
some inductively strong arguments have true premises
and a probably
true conclusio. no strong inductive argument can have
true
premises and a probably false conclusion.
Subject term 9 231 A word or phrase that names a class and that serves as
the grammatical subject of the sentence
Subjectivism 1 19 The view that truth is a matter of individual opinion
Syllogism 9 237 A three-line deductive argument—that is, a deductive
argument that consists of two premises and a conclusion
Syllogism 3 62 A three-line argument, that is, an argument that consists
of exactly two premises and a conclusion

T
The Common Pattern Test 3 59 If A then B.
A.
Therefore, B. This is an argument pattern that
logicians call modus ponens
The Principle of Charity 3 59 Serves two important goals in critical thinking: serves
Test two important goals in critical thinking, it promotes the
discovery of truth by insisting that we confront
arguments that we ourselves admit to be the strongest
and most plausible versions of those arguments. The
principle of charity should never be used to reinterpret
bad arguments as good ones
The Strict Necessity Test 3 58 The strict necessity test can be stated as follows:
An argument’s conclusion either follows with strict
logical necessity from its premises or it does not.
If the argument’s conclusion does follow with strict
logical necessity from its premises, the argument should
always be treated as deductive. 4
If the argument’s conclusion does not follow with strict
logical necessity from its premises, the argument should
normally be treated as inductive.
(The few exceptions to this rule are discussed later in this
section.)
Tips on finding the 2 35
Conclusion of an Argument
Truth table 10 253 A list of all possible truth values
Truth values 10 253 Each variable could be true or it could be false

U
Uncogent argument. 3 80 If an inductive argument either is weak or has at least
one false premise, it is an uncogent argument
Unsound deductive 3 77 Deductive arguments that either are invalid or have at
arguments least one false premise, or both, are called unsound
deductive arguments
Unsupported assertions 2 41 Statements about what a speaker or writer happens to
believe
Unwarranted assumptions 1 16 Something taken for granted without good reason

V
Validity preserves truth 3 77 Only by reasoning validly can we reason rigorously from
truth to truth
Venn diagrams 9 226 The easiest method involves drawing a series of
overlapping circles and associated markings

W
Weak inductive argument 3 78 In a weak inductive argument , the conclusion does not
follow probably from the premises.
In other words, a weak argument is an inductive
argument in which the premises, even if they are
assumed to be true, do not make the conclusion
probable. If the argument’s premises were true, would
the conclusion probably be true? If the
answer is yes, the argument is strong. If the answer is
no, the argument is weak.
Wishful thinking 1 24 Believing something not because you had good evidence
for it but simply because you wished it were true