,WGU D265 - WGU - Critical Thinking - Reason and Evidence Already Graded A+
Principle of Charity - (ANSWER)we should choose the reconstructed argument that gives the benefit of
the doubt to the person presenting the argument
confirmation bias - (ANSWER)a tendency to search for information that supports our preconceptions
and to ignore or distort contradictory evidence
Alief - (ANSWER)An automatic belief-like attitude that can explain how our instinctual responses can
conflict with our reasoned-out beliefs.
representitativeness heuristic - (ANSWER)A cognitive bias in which we categorize a new situation
based on the nearest prototype or experience in our mind.
anchoring bias - (ANSWER)a tendency to fixate on initial information, from which one then fails to
adequately adjust for subsequent information
selection bias - (ANSWER)When the sample we generalize from is too small or is not representative of
the larger target population
selective reporting - (ANSWER)Reporting the same data in different ways to achieve different
rhetorical goals.
availability bias - (ANSWER)items that are more readily available in memory are judged as having
occurred more frequently
ad hominem - (ANSWER)a fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in
dispute
Genetic Fallacy - (ANSWER)Condemning an argument because of where it began, how it began, or who
began it.
straw man fallacy - (ANSWER)instead of dealing with the actual issue, it attacks a weaker version of
the argument
,red herring fallacy - (ANSWER)when a speaker introduces an irrelevant issue or piece of evidence to
divert attention from argument
appeal to authority fallacy - (ANSWER)accepting a claim merely because an authority figure endorses
it
Appeal to Force - (ANSWER)Arguer threatens reader/listener
ad populum - (ANSWER)This fallacy occurs when evidence boils down to "everybody's doing it, so it
must be a good thing to do."
Appeal to Consequences - (ANSWER)attempt to motivate belief with either the good consequences of
believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving
Equivocation Fallacy - (ANSWER)when a key word or phrase in an argument is used with more than
one meaning. It is an illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning.
Appeal to Ignorance - (ANSWER)A fallacy that uses an opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion as
proof of the conclusion's correctness.
slippery slope fallacy - (ANSWER)a logical fallacy that assumes once an action begins it will lead,
undeterred, to an eventual and inevitable conclusion
Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy - (ANSWER)Cherry-picking data clusters to suit an argument, or finding a
pattern to fit a presumption.
post hoc ergo propter hoc - (ANSWER)This fallacy is Latin for "after which therefore because of which,"
meaning that it is incorrect to always claim that something is a cause just because it happened earlier.
One may loosely summarize this fallacy by saying that correlation does not imply causation.
Hasty Generalization - (ANSWER)A fallacy in which a conclusion is not logically justified by sufficient or
unbiased evidence.
, false dilemma fallacy - (ANSWER)argument in which a speaker reduces available choices to only two
even though other alternatives exist; also called the either-or fallacy
Black and White Fallacy - (ANSWER)A fallacy that occurs when the audience is only given two choices.
Burden of Proof Fallacy - (ANSWER)Saying that the burden of proof lies not with the person making
the claim, but with someone else to disprove.
Inference - (ANSWER)A conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning
deductive reasoning - (ANSWER)the process of applying a general statement to specific facts or
situations
inductive reasoning - (ANSWER)A type of logic in which generalizations are based on a large number of
specific observations.
valid argument - (ANSWER)a deductive argument that does in fact provide logically conclusive support
for its conclusion
sound argument - (ANSWER)a valid argument with true premises
cogent argument - (ANSWER)an inductive argument that is strong and has all true premises
Affirming the Consequent - (ANSWER)If A then B.
B.
Therefore, A.
Denying the Antecedent - (ANSWER)If A, then B... Not A. therefore not B.
Principle of Charity - (ANSWER)we should choose the reconstructed argument that gives the benefit of
the doubt to the person presenting the argument
confirmation bias - (ANSWER)a tendency to search for information that supports our preconceptions
and to ignore or distort contradictory evidence
Alief - (ANSWER)An automatic belief-like attitude that can explain how our instinctual responses can
conflict with our reasoned-out beliefs.
representitativeness heuristic - (ANSWER)A cognitive bias in which we categorize a new situation
based on the nearest prototype or experience in our mind.
anchoring bias - (ANSWER)a tendency to fixate on initial information, from which one then fails to
adequately adjust for subsequent information
selection bias - (ANSWER)When the sample we generalize from is too small or is not representative of
the larger target population
selective reporting - (ANSWER)Reporting the same data in different ways to achieve different
rhetorical goals.
availability bias - (ANSWER)items that are more readily available in memory are judged as having
occurred more frequently
ad hominem - (ANSWER)a fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in
dispute
Genetic Fallacy - (ANSWER)Condemning an argument because of where it began, how it began, or who
began it.
straw man fallacy - (ANSWER)instead of dealing with the actual issue, it attacks a weaker version of
the argument
,red herring fallacy - (ANSWER)when a speaker introduces an irrelevant issue or piece of evidence to
divert attention from argument
appeal to authority fallacy - (ANSWER)accepting a claim merely because an authority figure endorses
it
Appeal to Force - (ANSWER)Arguer threatens reader/listener
ad populum - (ANSWER)This fallacy occurs when evidence boils down to "everybody's doing it, so it
must be a good thing to do."
Appeal to Consequences - (ANSWER)attempt to motivate belief with either the good consequences of
believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving
Equivocation Fallacy - (ANSWER)when a key word or phrase in an argument is used with more than
one meaning. It is an illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning.
Appeal to Ignorance - (ANSWER)A fallacy that uses an opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion as
proof of the conclusion's correctness.
slippery slope fallacy - (ANSWER)a logical fallacy that assumes once an action begins it will lead,
undeterred, to an eventual and inevitable conclusion
Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy - (ANSWER)Cherry-picking data clusters to suit an argument, or finding a
pattern to fit a presumption.
post hoc ergo propter hoc - (ANSWER)This fallacy is Latin for "after which therefore because of which,"
meaning that it is incorrect to always claim that something is a cause just because it happened earlier.
One may loosely summarize this fallacy by saying that correlation does not imply causation.
Hasty Generalization - (ANSWER)A fallacy in which a conclusion is not logically justified by sufficient or
unbiased evidence.
, false dilemma fallacy - (ANSWER)argument in which a speaker reduces available choices to only two
even though other alternatives exist; also called the either-or fallacy
Black and White Fallacy - (ANSWER)A fallacy that occurs when the audience is only given two choices.
Burden of Proof Fallacy - (ANSWER)Saying that the burden of proof lies not with the person making
the claim, but with someone else to disprove.
Inference - (ANSWER)A conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning
deductive reasoning - (ANSWER)the process of applying a general statement to specific facts or
situations
inductive reasoning - (ANSWER)A type of logic in which generalizations are based on a large number of
specific observations.
valid argument - (ANSWER)a deductive argument that does in fact provide logically conclusive support
for its conclusion
sound argument - (ANSWER)a valid argument with true premises
cogent argument - (ANSWER)an inductive argument that is strong and has all true premises
Affirming the Consequent - (ANSWER)If A then B.
B.
Therefore, A.
Denying the Antecedent - (ANSWER)If A, then B... Not A. therefore not B.
