Critical Thinking Demystified: 100 Logic and Reasoning Questions to Ace PHIL-347N

Critical Thinking Demystified: 100
Logic and Reasoning Questions to
Ace PHIL-347N


PHIL-347N CRITICAL REASONING


SECTION A: Foundations of Critical Reasoning
Question 1
What are the three fundamental reasoning strategies identified in the text?
A. Deductive, inductive, abductive
B. Comparative reasoning, empirical reasoning, ideological reasoning
C. Critical thinking, problem-solving, decision-making
D. Logical, emotional, intuitive reasoning
Answer: B
Rationale: The text identifies three fundamental reasoning strategies:
comparative reasoning (this-is-like-that reasoning based on pattern recognition),
empirical reasoning (inductive reasoning based on observations), and ideological
reasoning (reasoning based on beliefs, values, and worldviews). Each strategy
serves different purposes in how we interpret information and draw conclusions .


Question 2
What is comparative reasoning, and on what skill is it based?
A. Reasoning based on statistical analysis; based on mathematical skills
B. This-is-like-that reasoning; based on pattern recognition

,C. Reasoning about moral issues; based on ethical principles
D. Reasoning from general to specific; based on logical deduction
Answer: B
Rationale: Comparative reasoning involves understanding something unfamiliar
by comparing it to something familiar—essentially "this is like that" thinking. It
relies fundamentally on pattern recognition, allowing us to interpret new
situations, draw inferences, and offer explanations by drawing on prior
knowledge and experiences .


Question 3
How well do the four tests for evaluating arguments (truthfulness of premises,
logical strength, relevance, non-circularity) work for evaluating comparative
reasoning?
A. They work perfectly for all types of reasoning
B. They do not work well because comparative reasoning does not seek to
determine whether a conclusion is true or false
C. They work better for comparative reasoning than for deductive reasoning
D. They work only for empirical reasoning
Answer: B
Rationale: The four standard tests for evaluating arguments do not work well for
comparative reasoning because comparative reasoning is not primarily about
determining truth or falsity. Instead, it seeks to illuminate, explain, or provide
perspective through analogy. The tests fail because: truth of premises doesn't
apply to comparisons, logical strength reveals plausibility rather than validity,
relevance requires explanation from the arguer, and non-circularity is difficult to
assess when projecting from familiar to unfamiliar .


Question 4
Why doesn't the test of "truthfulness of premises" work well for comparative
reasoning?

,A. Because comparative reasoning never uses premises
B. Because points of comparison are not connected in a way that permits saying
one is more true than another
C. Because comparative reasoning always uses false premises
D. Because truth is irrelevant to all reasoning
Answer: B
Rationale: The test of truthfulness of premises fails for comparative reasoning
because when we compare two things (e.g., "business is like war"), we cannot
meaningfully declare one side "true" and the other "false." Comparisons
illuminate similarities and differences rather than making truth claims about
either object. The value lies in the insight the comparison provides, not in the
truth value of the premises .


Question 5
What does the test of logical strength reveal when applied to comparative
reasoning?
A. Whether the argument is valid or invalid
B. Points of similarity and dissimilarity that make comparisons more or less
plausible
C. Whether the premises are true
D. Whether the conclusion is circular
Answer: B
Rationale: When evaluating comparative reasoning, logical strength helps identify
points of similarity and dissimilarity that make the comparison more or less
plausible. Rather than determining validity (as in deductive logic), this test
assesses how well the comparison holds up—whether the similarities are
significant and the dissimilarities are not so great that they undermine the
comparison's usefulness .


Question 6
How can we determine if one comparison is more comprehensive than another?

, A. By counting the number of words used
B. By assessing which one captures a greater number of essential features
C. By checking publication dates
D. By measuring reader satisfaction
Answer: B
Rationale: A more comprehensive comparison captures more of the essential
features of the things being compared. When evaluating competing analogies or
comparisons, we ask which one accounts for a greater number of important
characteristics. The comparison that explains or illuminates more key aspects is
considered more comprehensive and typically more useful .


Question 7
What are the five criteria for evaluating comparative reasoning?
A. Validity, soundness, strength, cogency, relevance
B. Familiarity, simplicity, comprehensiveness, productivity, testability
C. Clarity, accuracy, precision, depth, breadth
D. Truth, logic, evidence, emotion, intuition
Answer: B
Rationale: The five criteria specifically for evaluating comparative reasoning are:
(1) Familiarity—how well the listener knows the object of comparison; (2)
Simplicity—how complex the comparison is; (3) Comprehensiveness—how many
key features the comparison captures; (4) Productivity—whether the comparison
generates new insights; and (5) Testability—whether the comparison can predict
consequences that could be proven false .


Question 8
Define empirical reasoning in your own words.
A. Reasoning based on abstract concepts and ideas
B. Inductive reasoning based on observations that moves from specific
observations to general conclusions