REVISION AND SAMPLE END-COURSE TEST ON CRITICAL THINKING

1. Decide whether this is argument or not? Why (not)? [Chapter 2]

1) If it rains, then the picnic will be canceled.
2) I believe that it is not dying that people are afraid of. Something else,
something more unsettling and more tragic than dying frightens us. We are
afraid of never having lived, of coming to the end of our days with the sense that
we were never really alive, that we never figured out what life was for.
3) Titanic sank because it struck an iceberg.
4) Sweeping changes occurred in demographics, economics, culture, and society
during the last quarter of the 20th century. [...] Rapid technological change
fueled the growth of globalized industries, restructuring the labor force to fit a
“postindustrial” economy.
5) Many wildflowers are edible. For example, daisies and day lilies are delicious
in salads.
6) Most Cubans are hot-tempered. Sandro is Cuban. It is reasonable to conclude
that Sandro is hot-tempered.

No Argument Unsupported Report Conditional Illustration Explanation

assumption
1
2
3
4
5
6

No Why this is (not) an argument?

1
2
3
 4
5
6

You may use the information given below about reports, illustrations,
unsupported assumptions, explanations, conditional sentences to explain
your choice.
 Reports
- convey information about a subject, a series of events, narrate and inform, not to offer
reasons
• Conditional statements
They are not arguments.
They can be parts of arguments.
 Illustrations
provide examples of a claim, rather than prove or support the claim
Its purpose is not to provide convincing evidence for a conclusion
 Explanations
tries to show why something is the case, not to prove that it is the case.
you can argue about whether a given explanation is or is not correct.
e.g. Capital punishment should be abolished because innocent people may be
mistakenly executed.
• Unsupported statements
statements which can be true or false about what a speaker or writer happens to
believe, but they are parts of arguments only if the speaker or writer claims that
they follow from, or support, other claims.

*4 basic tests to distinguish arguments from explanations

The Common-Knowledge Test
To prove or to explain?
e.g. The North won the American Civil War because it had a larger population and a
greater industrial base. (=> to explain)
The Past-Event Test
To prove or to explain a past event?
e.g. Mel flunked out because he never went to class (=>to explain)
The Author’s Intent Test
To prove or to establish that sth is the case
Kevin is majoring in political science because he wants to go to law school. (=> to prove
=> argument)
The Principle of Charity Test
- always interpret unclear passages generously
- never interpret a passage as a bad argument when the evidence reasonably permits us
to interpret it as not an argument at all

2. Provide example of hypothetical syllogisms [Chapter 3, page 65]

 Modus ponens

 Chain argument

 Modus tollens (denying the consequent)

 Denying the antecedent

 Affirming the consequent

3. Provide your own example of Categorical Syllogism [Chapter 3, page 68]

• Argument by elimination
• Argument Based on Mathematics
• Argument from Definition

4. Is each of the following deductive argument valid or not? Explain why.

[Chapter 3]

1)

 All squares are circles.

 All circles are triangles.
 Therefore, all squares are triangles.
2)

 All fruits are vegetables.

  Spinach is a fruit.
 Therefore, spinach is a vegetable.
3)

 All dogs are animals.

 Lassie is an animal.
 Therefore, Lassie is a dog.
4)

 All pears are vegetables.

 All fruits are vegetables.
 Therefore, all pears are fruits.
5)

 If I’m a monkey’s uncle, then I’m a primate.

 I’m not a primate.
 So, I’m not a monkey’s uncle.

5. Rewrite the invalid deductive arguments in question 4 to make it valid.

[Chapter 3]

Based on the test of deductive validity

If the argument’s premises were true, would the conclusion also have to be true?

i.e. If you accept the premises, you cannot escape the acceptance of the conclusion

E.g.

 The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.

 Paris is in France.
 Therefore, the Eiffel Tower is in France.

 All pigs are sheep.

 All sheep are goats.
 Therefore, all pigs are goats.

6. Is the following argument good/sound? Why not? [Chapter 3: deductive

argument]

1)

 All heavenly bodies are made of green cheese.

  The moon is a heavenly body.
 Therefore, the moon is made of green cheese.
2)

 The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.

 Paris is in France.
 Therefore, the Eiffel Tower is in France.

7. Is the following argument strong? Why not? [Chapter 3: inductive

argument]

1)

 Most college students own MP3 players.

 Andy is a college student.
 So, Andy probably owns an MP3 player.
2)

 All previous popes have been men.

 Therefore, probably the next pope will be a woman.
3)

 Fifty-five percent of students at East Laredo State University are Hispanic.

 Li Fang Wang, owner of Wang’s Chinese Restaurant, is a student at East Laredo
State University.
 Therefore, Li Fang Wang is probably Hispanic.

8. Analyze the following argument using the specification in the cells below.
Put the tick  in the appropriate cell. [Chapter 3]

1)

 According to the National Weather Service, there is a 40 percent chance of rain

today.
 Therefore, probably it will be sunny today.
2)

• Eighty-three percent of St. Stephen’s students are Episcopalian.

 Beatrice is a St. Stephen’s student.
 So, Beatrice is probably Episcopalian.
3)

 Either Joe walked to the library or he drove.

  But Joe didn’t drive to the library.
 Therefore, Joe jogged to the library.
4)

Tom is a rabbit. It follows that Tom is a rodent.

No Deductive Inductive Sound Unsound Strong Weak Valid Invalid Cogent Uncogent
1   
2
3
4

9. Is the following argument strong or weak?

Rewrite this argument so that it becomes more convincing.

 Most U.S. presidents have been over fifty years old.

 Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will be single.

Why the following inductive argument is a bad one although it is strong?

 All previous U.S. presidents have worn togas.

 Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will wear a toga.

FALLACIES [Chapter 4]

Fallacies of RELEVANCE

10. What kind of fallacy (of relevance) is committed in the following

arguments?

1)

Maria’s husband has argument against wife’s role in his family. But he is unable to have
a baby, never does housework and doesn’t have to worry about living expenses.
Therefore, his argument is wortless.

2)

Professor Michaelson has argued in favor of academic tenure. But why should we even
listen to Professor Michaelson? As a tenured professor, of course he supports tenure.

3)
  Doctor: You should quit smoking.

 Patient: Look who’s talking! I’ll quit when you do, Dr. Smokestack!

4)

I don’t feel guilty about cheating on Dr. Boyer’s test. Half the class cheats on his tests.

5)

Gun lobbyist to politician:

This gun-control bill is wrong for America, and any politician who supports it will
discover how wrong they were at the next election.

6)

Parent to high school football coach:

I admit my son Billy can’t run, pass, kick, catch, block, or tackle, but he deserves to
make the football team. If he doesn’t make the team, he’s going to be an emotional
wreck, and he may even drop out of school

7)

All the really cool kids at East Jefferson High School smoke cigarettes. Therefore, you
should, too.

A popular belief / a true belief?

8)

Pete has argued that the New York Yankees are a better baseball team than the Atlanta
Braves. But the Braves aren’t a bad team. They have a great pitching staff, and they
consistently finish at or near the top of their division. Obviously, Pete doesn’t know what
he’s talking about.

9)

Many people criticize Thomas Jefferson for being an owner of slaves. But Jefferson was
one of our greatest presidents, and his Declaration of Independence is one of the most
eloquent pleas for freedom and democracy ever written. Clearly, these criticisms are
unwarranted.

10)
It is a crime to smoke grass. Kentucky bluegrass is a grass. Therefore, it is a crime to
smoke Kentucky bluegrass.

11)

Bungee-jumping is dangerous because it’s unsafe.

Fallacies of INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

1)

My barber told me that Einstein’s general theory of relativity is a lot of hogwash. I guess
Einstein wasn’t as smart as everybody thinks he was.

2)

Mrs. Cox has testified that her son Willie was home with her at the time when Willie is
alleged to have shot Steve Wilson. Even though Willie’s fingerprints were found on the
murder weapon and six witnesses have identified Willie as the assailant, I can’t believe
that a good woman like Mrs. Cox would lie to protect her son. I think Willy is innocent.

3)

Jerry [who was listening to heavy metal music on his iPod] claims he heard the victim
whisper his name from more than 100 feet away. Jerry has always struck me as a
straight shooter. So, I have to believe that Jerry really did hear the victim whisper his
name.

4)

Weekly World News, a once-popular supermarket tabloid.

Scientists’ Research Reveals . . . It Takes 3 Million Years for a Human Soul

to Reach Heaven . . . And No One from Earth Has Arrived There Yet!

5)

It states in the Constitution that there must be a “wall of separation” between church
and state. Publicly funded school vouchers clearly violate this wall of separation.
Therefore, publicly funded school vouchers are unconstitutional.

6)

Dr. Duane Gish, a biochemist with a Ph.D. from Berkeley and former senior vice
president of the Institute for Creation Research, has argued that there is no credible
evidence supporting the theory of evolution. In view of Dr. Gish’s expertise on this
subject, we should conclude that evolution is a myth.
7)

Dr. Stanford P. Higginbotham, a leading social philosopher, has argued that capital
punishment is always morally wrong. Given Dr. Higginbotham’s impressive credentials,
we should conclude that capital punishment is always morally wrong.

8)

Old Doc Perkins says he has an eighty-year-old friend who can run a 100-yard dash in
less than ten seconds. Old Doc is one of the most trusted members of this community.
So, if Old Doc says he has an eighty-year-old friend who can run a 100-yard dash in less
than ten seconds, I, for one, believe him.

9)

There must be intelligent life on other planets. No one has proven that there isn’t.

There isn’t any intelligent life on other planets. No one has proven that there is.

10)

Either we elect a Republican as president, or crime rates will skyrocket. Obviously, we

don’t want crime rates to skyrocket. Therefore, we should elect a Republican as
president.

ANALYZING ARGUMENTS [Chapter 5]

11. Write an argument to illustrate each of the diagram with flowchart that
indicates relationships of argumentative support

1)

  

2)

 
 
3)

  

4) 

12. Draw the diagrams that indicates relationships of argumentative

support.

 (Note that this is a case of Mixed Patterns of Linked & Independent Premises

1) Most Democrats are liberals, and Senator Dumdiddle is a Democrat. Thus, Senator
Dumdiddle is probably a liberal. Therefore, Senator Dumdiddle probably supports
affirmative action in higher education, because most liberals support affirmative action
in higher education.

2)
Cheating is wrong for several reasons. First, it will ultimately lower your self-respect
because you can never be proud of anything you got by cheating. Second, cheating is a
lie because it deceives other people into thinking you know more than you do. Third,
cheating violates the teacher’s trust that you will do your own work. Fourth, cheating is
unfair to all the people who aren’t cheating. Finally, if you cheat in school now, you’ll
find it easier to cheat in other situations later in life—perhaps even in your closest
personal relationships.

3)

If Amy runs marathons, she’s probably very fit. Amy does run marathons. She’s also a B
student. So, Amy probably is very fit.

(Note that this argument contains an irrelevant premise)

13. Find the missing premise/conclusion for the arguments below.

[Analyzing long arguments]

1) Store clerk:

I’m sorry, I can’t sell you any beer; you’re under twenty-one.

 Implied premise:

2) Advertisement:

The bigger the burger, the better the burger. Burgers are bigger at Burger King.

 Implied conclusion:
 BÀI THI KẾT THÚC HỌC PHẦN HỌC KỲ I - 2018-2019

Học phần: Tư duy phê phán Mã đề: ENDCT000

Mã học phần: 4112042 Số TC: 02
KHOA TIẾNG ANH Ngày thi: 11/12/2018 Thời gian: 45 phút

Họ tên: ……………….…................ Cán bộ coi thi 1 Cán bộ coi thi 2 Số phách
Lớp: ………………….….………...
Mã SV: ………………..…..............
Số báo danh: …………...………….
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Điểm (số) Điểm (chữ) Cán bộ chấm thi 1 Cán bộ chấm thi 2 Số phách

1. Decide whether this is argument or not? Why (not)?

No Statements  Why (not)

Argument
e.g. conditional can only be
If 'Avoid the rush-hour' must be the slogan of large cities the Conditional part of argument as
world over, it's a slogan no one takes the least notice of. premise

2. Provide your own example of the following kinds of argument

Kinds of atgument Example
1 ........

2 ........

3 ........

3. Examine the arguments and the following questions

i) Is each of the following deductive argument valid or not?
ii) Explain why.
iii) Rewrite the unvalid argument to make it valid.

Mã đề: ENDCT000 Trang 1/4

 Phần cắt phách. Không làm bài vào đây.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 valid Your explanation Rewritten argument (if invalid)

E.g. All birds are mammals. A
crow is a bird. Therefore,
the crow is a mammal.
1)
+ valid The conclusion follows (NA: not applied)
logically from the premises
crow  birds  mammals
 crow  mammals

2)

4. Explain why the following argument is not a sound argument and rewrite it to make it a sound
argument.

Argument Explanation Rewritten argument

E.g. The Eiffel Tower is in London. Premise 1: False The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.
London is in France. Premise 2: False Paris is in France.
Therefore, the Eiffel Tower is in France. Therefore, the Eiffel Tower is in France.

5. Explain why the following argument is not a cogent argument and rewrite it to make it a cogent
argument.
Argument Explanation Rewritten argument
E.g. All the previous deans of the premise: False E.g. All the previous deans of the English
English Department are female. So Department were over 30 years old. So next dean is
next dean is probably female. probably over 30 years old.

6. Find the missing premise/conclusion for the arguments below.

Missing part Premise/ Rewritten argument

conclusion
E.g. The bigger the burger, the (Burgers are missing The bigger the burger, the better the
better the burger. Burgers are better at conclusion burger. Burgers are bigger at Burger King.
bigger at Burger King. Burger King) So, Burgers are better at Burger King
1

Mã đề: ENDCT000 Trang 2/4

 Phần cắt phách. Không làm bài vào đây.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. What kind of falacy is committed in the following arguments?

Argument kind of falacy Explanation

committed
E.g. "You're clearly just too young to understand." Personal attack Stating one's age to stop him
from being able to make a
meaningful argument
1)

2)

3)

8. Write an argument to illustrate each of the diagram with flowchart that indicates relationships
of argumentative support
1) Your argument

2)

Your argument

Mã đề: ENDCT000 Trang 3/4

 Phần cắt phách. Không làm bài vào đây.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Draw the diagrams that indicates relationships of argumentative support.

 (Note that this is a case of Mixed Patterns of Linked & Independent Premises)

Mã đề: ENDCT000 Trang 4/4