Question 1.
1. (TCO 1) "Thinking about thinking" is the definition of what?
Development of arguments
Measure of good sense
Development of critical skills
Writing for clarity
Critical thinking
Question 2.
2. (TCO 1, 2, 4) What is the principle concern when handling an issue?
Whether a given claim is true or not
Whether the claim at issue attaches to the conclusion or not
Whether the claim at issue is clearly understood
Whether the claim is not ambiguous
Whether the claim at issue is open for discussion and resolution
Question 3.
3. (TCO 1, 2, 3) What are the two parts of an argument?
Description and detail
Problem and proposal
Explanation and clarification
Definition and example
Premise and conclusion
Question 4.
4. (TCOs 2, 3) Inductive arguments support conclusions and are described as stronger or weaker. What is meant by that description?
It proves the conclusion.
It is a measure of how much support a premise provides for a conclusion.
It is a measure to show opportunities for improvement.
It is a measure of how certain the conclusion is.
It provides encouragement for believing the claim in the conclusion.
Question 5.
5. (TCO 1, 2) The mode of persuasion that Aristotle defined as ethos refers to arguments based on what?
Whether a decision is ethical
Being alert to influences in one's thinking
The speaker's personal attributes
The audience's emotions
Using information and reasoning
Question 6.
6. (TCO 6) What is a likely reason for having trouble identifying a conclusion in what you hear or read?
There are too many rhetorical claims
There is not enough background information
The premise introduces a consideration that runs counter to common sense
The conventions of argument are not being followed
It could be that the passage is not an argument at all
Question 7.
7. (TCOs 6, 7, 8, 9) Which of the five items below is usually NOT a part of a good argumentative essay?
A statement of the issue
A statement of one's position on the issue
A statement of one's authority or expertise
Arguments that support one's position on the issue
Rebuttals of arguments that support a contrary position
Question 8.
8. (TCOs 6, 8, 9) What does it mean to say that a word, phrase, or sentence is ambiguous?
That the word or phrase has more than one meaning
That there is a rhetorical activity being employed for the purpose of persuasion
That the word or phrase is not commonly used in conversational speech
That the word or phrase is being used out of context
That the words in a phrase are not being used according to accepted patterns
Question 9.
9. (TCOs 2, 6, 7, 8) Which of the following would suggest a lack of credibility in a claim?
When it is accompanied by other claims that have credibility
The claim conflicts with what we have observed
When the person presenting the claim has something to gain by our believing it
When it brings something we have not learned before
When it comes from an interested party
Question 10.
10. (TCOs 1, 6, 7, 9) What is the purpose of the rhetorical device called a euphemism?
To replace ambiguous terms with clearer ones
To hide the agenda of interested parties
To replace another term with a neutral or positive expression instead of one with negative associations
To replace vague terms with others that communicate more information
To replace other expressions with new ones that are expected to be more acceptable
Question 11.
11. (TCOs 1, 7) What is the purpose of the rhetorical device called hyperbole?
Synonym for euphemism
To bring humor to a difficult analysis
Exaggerating for effect
Sarcastic claim
Based on unwarranted assumptions
Question 12.
12. (TCOs 1, 2) What is the inconsistency ad hominem fallacy?
Support of an argument based on the developing knowledge of the person presenting it
Support of an argument based on scientific developments
Attack on an argument based on inconsistency with what the person making the argument has said in the past
Attack on an argument based on its internal inconsistency or internal logic
Attack on an argument based on the identity of the person presenting it
Question 13.
13. (TCOs 6, 7, 8) To the overall topic of burden of proof, what is the purpose of the rule called affirmative/negative plausibility?
Other things being equal, the burden of proof falls automatically on those supporting it affirmatively.
Other things being equal, the burden of proof is shared by all parties that have a shared interest in the outcome.
Other things being equal, the burden of proof rests with the parties with the most to lose.
Other things being equal, the burden of proof rests with neither party automatically.
Other things being equal, the first decision must be who must bear the burden of proof.
Question 14.
14. (TCOs 1, 2) What is a standard-form categorical claim?
The claim that the burden of proof must be shared because the evidence is too weak and indirect.
A claim based on the primary documents of early philosophers.
A claim that strictly follows Aristotle's method.
A claim that relies upon the orderly processes of biology.
A claim that results from putting names or descriptions of classes into one of the AEIO forms.
Question 15.
15. (TCOs 3, 4) Each standard form of categorical logic has its own graphic illustration known by what name?
Overlapping regions
Block of exclusion
JoHari window
Venn diagram
Square of opposition
Question 16.
16. (TCOs 3, 4, 8, 9) Claims are equivalent under what terms?
Under no circumstances could both be false.
Under no circumstances could one of them be true and the other false.
Under no circumstances could the truth of one transfer to the other one.
Under no circumstances could the conclusion be true if the premise is false.
Under no circumstance can they both be translated into differing standard forms of categorical logic.
Question 17.
17. (TCOs 2, 3, 4) Logical relationships between corresponding claims of standard-form categorical logic are illustrated in the graphic square of opposition. What is known about two claims when they are called contradictory claims?
They never have the same truth values.
One is always false in the set.
They always have the same truth values.
They never share the same subject term.
One is always true in the set.
Question 18.
18. (TCOs 2, 3, 4) How do we work the categorical operation called obversion?
By changing the claims from being in the same class to being outside the class
By limiting the scope of terms used to those within a class
By changing a claim from positive to negative, or vice versa
By changing one claim to referring outside of a class but leaving the other one inside the class
By making an argument invalid in form
Question 19.
19. (TCOs 2, 5) What is meant by the term random sample?
Every member of a population has an equal chance of being included in the sample.
The size of the sample has not been predetermined.
There is no systematic way of choosing the sample.
The sample has been validated by the considerations by which it was chosen.
Nobody has been excluded from the sample for reasons of prejudice.
Question 20.
20. (TCOs 2, 5) In studying a sample, what is meant by the term error margin?
Underlying assumptions about the choice of the sample itself
The range of random variation from sample to sample
Factors that reduce the diversity of the sample
The randomness of the sample population
The size of the sample itself
Question 21.
21. (TCOs 1, 5, 8, 9) What is the inductive "fallacy of anecdotal evidence"?
A version of hasty generalizing where the sample is just a story
Bypassing standard questions to ask for opinions
Telling personal experiences
Bypassing standard questioning to accept data that does not match the possible answers
Asking hypothetical questions of "what if..."
Question 22.
22. (TCOs 1, 2) What is an analogue?
A version of hasty generalizing where the sample is just a story
The idea that one can understand predictability and overcome its randomness
Telling personal experiences
The idea that sequences of occurrences can be predicted
A thing that has similar attributes to another thing
Question 23.
23. (TCOs 1, 2, 3) What are the two kinds of causal explanations?
Physical and behavioral
Analogous and relevant
True and false
General and specific
Descriptive and prescriptive
Question 24.
24. (TCOs 2, 6) What is the driving concept within religious relativism in ethics?
The belief that what is right and wrong is whatever one's religious affiliation or culture deems to be right and wrong
That only one's own religion has the correct access to ethics
That the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy does not apply to the leaders of one's religious group
That it is important to be affiliated with a group in order to adopt its ethics and moral standards
That there is no ethical variation or conflict within religious groups when the religious groups engage controversial topics
Question 25.
25. (TCOs 1, 6) "If separate cases are not different in any relevant way, then they should be treated the same way, and if separate cases are treated in the same way, they should not be different in any relevant way." What is this principle called?
Aesthetic principle
Confluence principle
Consistency principle
Distributive justice
Categorical imperative