PHIL 347 Exam 4: Critical Reasoning - Updated and Latest
Questions and Correct Answers with Rationale
1. In argument mapping, what is the primary difference between dependent and independent premises?
A. Dependent premises work together to support a conclusion, whereas independent premises provide
support on their own.
B. Dependent premises provide support individually, while independent premises must be combined.
C. Independent premises are always deductive, while dependent premises are always inductive.
D. Dependent premises act as conclusions for other sub-arguments within the map.
Correct Answer: A
Rationale: Argument mapping identifies the structural relationship between claims and their support.
Dependent premises are linked because they require each other to provide a complete reason for the
conclusion. If one dependent premise is removed, the other no longer supports the claim effectively.
Independent premises offer separate, stand-alone reasons that contribute to the conclusion’s probability.
Recognizing this distinction is vital for accurately diagramming complex philosophical arguments.
2. Which logical fallacy occurs when someone attacks the character of the person making an argument
rather than the argument itself?
A. Straw Man
B. Appeal to Ignorance
C. Red Herring
D. Ad Hominem
Correct Answer: D
,Rationale: The Ad Hominem fallacy shifts the focus from the logic of a claim to the personal traits of the
arguer. This tactic is often used to discredit a position without addressing its actual merits. Critical
reasoning requires separating the source of information from the validity of the information provided.
Attacking a person’s character does not logically invalidate their premises or conclusions. Thus,
identifying this fallacy is essential for maintaining objective analytical standards.
3. Consider the following argument: ‘If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet. Therefore, it rained.’
This is an example of which formal fallacy?
A. Denying the Antecedent
B. Affirming the Consequent
C. Modus Tollens
D. Disjunctive Syllogism
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy where the second part of a conditional is used to
prove the first. While the conditional statement is true, other factors could cause the ground to be wet
besides rain. This error confuses the direction of the logical relationship between the antecedent and the
consequent. In deductive logic, this structure is invalid because the conclusion does not follow
necessarily from the premises. A sound critical thinker looks for alternative causes to avoid this specific
reasoning trap.
4. What is the ‘Anchoring Effect’ in the context of cognitive bias and decision-making?
A. The tendency to ignore the first piece of information offered.
B. The tendency to search for information that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs.
C. The tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information encountered when making decisions.
, D. The tendency to overestimate the probability of events with high emotional impact.
Correct Answer: C
Rationale: The anchoring effect describes how an initial value or piece of information influences
subsequent judgments. Once an anchor is set, other options are compared against it rather than
evaluated on their own merits. This bias can significantly impact negotiations, pricing, and analytical
problem-solving. It occurs even when the initial anchor is completely arbitrary or irrelevant to the task.
Understanding this bias allows a reasoner to step back and re-evaluate information more objectively.
5. In deductive reasoning, an argument is ‘sound’ if and only if:
A. It is cogent and the conclusion is probably true.
B. It is valid and all its premises are actually true.
C. The conclusion is true, regardless of the premises.
D. It follows the rules of hypothetical syllogism.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: Soundness is the highest standard for a deductive argument in critical reasoning. It requires
two conditions: the logical structure must be valid, and the content must be factually correct. Validity
ensures that if the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true. Truth ensures that the
starting points are actually grounded in reality. Therefore, a sound argument provides an inescapable
conclusion based on true evidence.
6. An enthymeme is defined as an argument that:
A. Has more than two conclusions.
B. Is logically invalid due to its structure.
C. Contains an unstated premise or conclusion.
Questions and Correct Answers with Rationale
1. In argument mapping, what is the primary difference between dependent and independent premises?
A. Dependent premises work together to support a conclusion, whereas independent premises provide
support on their own.
B. Dependent premises provide support individually, while independent premises must be combined.
C. Independent premises are always deductive, while dependent premises are always inductive.
D. Dependent premises act as conclusions for other sub-arguments within the map.
Correct Answer: A
Rationale: Argument mapping identifies the structural relationship between claims and their support.
Dependent premises are linked because they require each other to provide a complete reason for the
conclusion. If one dependent premise is removed, the other no longer supports the claim effectively.
Independent premises offer separate, stand-alone reasons that contribute to the conclusion’s probability.
Recognizing this distinction is vital for accurately diagramming complex philosophical arguments.
2. Which logical fallacy occurs when someone attacks the character of the person making an argument
rather than the argument itself?
A. Straw Man
B. Appeal to Ignorance
C. Red Herring
D. Ad Hominem
Correct Answer: D
,Rationale: The Ad Hominem fallacy shifts the focus from the logic of a claim to the personal traits of the
arguer. This tactic is often used to discredit a position without addressing its actual merits. Critical
reasoning requires separating the source of information from the validity of the information provided.
Attacking a person’s character does not logically invalidate their premises or conclusions. Thus,
identifying this fallacy is essential for maintaining objective analytical standards.
3. Consider the following argument: ‘If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet. Therefore, it rained.’
This is an example of which formal fallacy?
A. Denying the Antecedent
B. Affirming the Consequent
C. Modus Tollens
D. Disjunctive Syllogism
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy where the second part of a conditional is used to
prove the first. While the conditional statement is true, other factors could cause the ground to be wet
besides rain. This error confuses the direction of the logical relationship between the antecedent and the
consequent. In deductive logic, this structure is invalid because the conclusion does not follow
necessarily from the premises. A sound critical thinker looks for alternative causes to avoid this specific
reasoning trap.
4. What is the ‘Anchoring Effect’ in the context of cognitive bias and decision-making?
A. The tendency to ignore the first piece of information offered.
B. The tendency to search for information that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs.
C. The tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information encountered when making decisions.
, D. The tendency to overestimate the probability of events with high emotional impact.
Correct Answer: C
Rationale: The anchoring effect describes how an initial value or piece of information influences
subsequent judgments. Once an anchor is set, other options are compared against it rather than
evaluated on their own merits. This bias can significantly impact negotiations, pricing, and analytical
problem-solving. It occurs even when the initial anchor is completely arbitrary or irrelevant to the task.
Understanding this bias allows a reasoner to step back and re-evaluate information more objectively.
5. In deductive reasoning, an argument is ‘sound’ if and only if:
A. It is cogent and the conclusion is probably true.
B. It is valid and all its premises are actually true.
C. The conclusion is true, regardless of the premises.
D. It follows the rules of hypothetical syllogism.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: Soundness is the highest standard for a deductive argument in critical reasoning. It requires
two conditions: the logical structure must be valid, and the content must be factually correct. Validity
ensures that if the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true. Truth ensures that the
starting points are actually grounded in reality. Therefore, a sound argument provides an inescapable
conclusion based on true evidence.
6. An enthymeme is defined as an argument that:
A. Has more than two conclusions.
B. Is logically invalid due to its structure.
C. Contains an unstated premise or conclusion.
