6/9/25, 10:28 AM WGU - D265 - Critical Thinking Flashcards | Quizlet
Arts and Humanities Philosophy Logic Save
WGU D265WGU
- WGU - CRITICAL
- D265 - Critical Thinking THINKING
EXAM WITH 100% RATED CORRECT Leave the first rating
680+ REAL EXAM QUESTIONS AND
Students also studied
CORRECT ANSWERS| GRADED A+
Flashcard sets Study guides Practice tests
|2025 LATEST VERSION | 100%
Vitamin sources****** Nutrition Test info D440 ********** Traditional Logic Chapter 11 Logical
17 terms 107 terms Teacher 60 terms 7 terms
VERIFIED
Elizabeth_Smith8634 Preview Elizabeth_Smith8634 Preview KingDeDeP Preview sb3
Terms in this set (684)
The basic components of an argument in critical thinking are: a claim (or conclusion),
premises (reasons or evidence supporting the claim), and a warrant (the logical
connection between the premises and the claim); essentially, what you are arguing
for, the reasons why you believe it, and the reasoning that links them together.
Breakdown of each component:
Claim/conclusion:
The main point or statement that the argument is trying to prove, often considered
the conclusion of the argument.
Premises:
Statements that provide evidence or reasons to support the claim, acting as the
foundation for the argument.
Warrant:
basic components of arguments
The underlying assumption or logical connection that explains how the premises
lead to the conclusion.
Key points to remember:
Evaluating an argument:
When critically analyzing an argument, you should assess whether the premises are
strong, the evidence is reliable, and the warrant is logical and valid.
Implicit elements:
Sometimes, warrants may not be explicitly stated but are implied within the
argument.
Counterarguments:
A well-rounded argument also considers potential counterarguments and addresses
opposing viewpoints.
https://quizlet.com/1011373730/wgu-d265-critical-thinking-flash-cards/ 1/13
, 6/9/25, 10:28 AM WGU - D265 - Critical Thinking Flashcards | Quizlet
In critical thinking, "premises" are the statements or evidence used to support a
conclusion, while the "conclusion" is the main point or claim that is being argued
for, which is derived from the presented premises; essentially, premises act as the
foundation for the conclusion to be logically reached.
Key points about premises and conclusions:
Function:
Premises provide reasons or facts to justify the conclusion, while the conclusion is
the statement that is being argued for based on those premises.
premises and conclusions in crtitical
Logical relationship:
thinking
If the premises are true, then the conclusion should logically follow as true.
Identifying indicators:
Words like "because," "since," and "for" often indicate the start of a premise, while
"therefore," "thus," and "so" often signal the conclusion.
Example:
Premise 1: All dogs are mammals.
Premise 2: Fido is a dog.
Conclusion: Therefore, Fido is a mammal.
In critical thinking, a "formal fallacy" refers to an error in reasoning that occurs due
to a flawed structure within the argument itself, regardless of the truth of the
premises, while an "informal fallacy" is a flawed argument that arises from the
content or wording of the premises, often involving irrelevant or misleading
information, rather than a structural problem in the logic itself.
Key Differences:
Focus on Structure:
formal and informal fallacies in critical
Formal fallacies are primarily concerned with the logical form of the argument,
thinking
meaning if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises based on their
structure alone.
Focus on Content:
Informal fallacies examine the content of the premises, looking for issues like
irrelevant appeals, mischaracterizations, or ambiguous language that might lead to a
faulty conclusion.
Affirming the consequent:
"If it is raining, then the ground is wet. The ground is wet, therefore it is raining."
Denying the antecedent:
Examples of Formal Fallacies: "If it is raining, then the ground is wet. It is not raining, therefore the ground is not
wet."
Undistributed middle:
"All cats are mammals. All dogs are mammals. Therefore, all cats are dogs."
Ad hominem: Attacking the character of the person making the argument instead of
addressing the argument itself.
Straw man fallacy: Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to refute.
(taking someone's argument and twisting their words)
Appeal to emotion: Using emotional manipulation to persuade instead of logical
Examples of Informal Fallacies: reasoning.
False dichotomy: Presenting only two options when there are more possibilities
Slippery slope fallacy: Assuming that one small action will inevitably lead to a chain
of increasingly disastrous events
Begging the question: Using the conclusion as a premise in an argument
Appeal to ignorance: Claiming something is true because there is no evidence to
disprove it
https://quizlet.com/1011373730/wgu-d265-critical-thinking-flash-cards/ 2/13
Arts and Humanities Philosophy Logic Save
WGU D265WGU
- WGU - CRITICAL
- D265 - Critical Thinking THINKING
EXAM WITH 100% RATED CORRECT Leave the first rating
680+ REAL EXAM QUESTIONS AND
Students also studied
CORRECT ANSWERS| GRADED A+
Flashcard sets Study guides Practice tests
|2025 LATEST VERSION | 100%
Vitamin sources****** Nutrition Test info D440 ********** Traditional Logic Chapter 11 Logical
17 terms 107 terms Teacher 60 terms 7 terms
VERIFIED
Elizabeth_Smith8634 Preview Elizabeth_Smith8634 Preview KingDeDeP Preview sb3
Terms in this set (684)
The basic components of an argument in critical thinking are: a claim (or conclusion),
premises (reasons or evidence supporting the claim), and a warrant (the logical
connection between the premises and the claim); essentially, what you are arguing
for, the reasons why you believe it, and the reasoning that links them together.
Breakdown of each component:
Claim/conclusion:
The main point or statement that the argument is trying to prove, often considered
the conclusion of the argument.
Premises:
Statements that provide evidence or reasons to support the claim, acting as the
foundation for the argument.
Warrant:
basic components of arguments
The underlying assumption or logical connection that explains how the premises
lead to the conclusion.
Key points to remember:
Evaluating an argument:
When critically analyzing an argument, you should assess whether the premises are
strong, the evidence is reliable, and the warrant is logical and valid.
Implicit elements:
Sometimes, warrants may not be explicitly stated but are implied within the
argument.
Counterarguments:
A well-rounded argument also considers potential counterarguments and addresses
opposing viewpoints.
https://quizlet.com/1011373730/wgu-d265-critical-thinking-flash-cards/ 1/13
, 6/9/25, 10:28 AM WGU - D265 - Critical Thinking Flashcards | Quizlet
In critical thinking, "premises" are the statements or evidence used to support a
conclusion, while the "conclusion" is the main point or claim that is being argued
for, which is derived from the presented premises; essentially, premises act as the
foundation for the conclusion to be logically reached.
Key points about premises and conclusions:
Function:
Premises provide reasons or facts to justify the conclusion, while the conclusion is
the statement that is being argued for based on those premises.
premises and conclusions in crtitical
Logical relationship:
thinking
If the premises are true, then the conclusion should logically follow as true.
Identifying indicators:
Words like "because," "since," and "for" often indicate the start of a premise, while
"therefore," "thus," and "so" often signal the conclusion.
Example:
Premise 1: All dogs are mammals.
Premise 2: Fido is a dog.
Conclusion: Therefore, Fido is a mammal.
In critical thinking, a "formal fallacy" refers to an error in reasoning that occurs due
to a flawed structure within the argument itself, regardless of the truth of the
premises, while an "informal fallacy" is a flawed argument that arises from the
content or wording of the premises, often involving irrelevant or misleading
information, rather than a structural problem in the logic itself.
Key Differences:
Focus on Structure:
formal and informal fallacies in critical
Formal fallacies are primarily concerned with the logical form of the argument,
thinking
meaning if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises based on their
structure alone.
Focus on Content:
Informal fallacies examine the content of the premises, looking for issues like
irrelevant appeals, mischaracterizations, or ambiguous language that might lead to a
faulty conclusion.
Affirming the consequent:
"If it is raining, then the ground is wet. The ground is wet, therefore it is raining."
Denying the antecedent:
Examples of Formal Fallacies: "If it is raining, then the ground is wet. It is not raining, therefore the ground is not
wet."
Undistributed middle:
"All cats are mammals. All dogs are mammals. Therefore, all cats are dogs."
Ad hominem: Attacking the character of the person making the argument instead of
addressing the argument itself.
Straw man fallacy: Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to refute.
(taking someone's argument and twisting their words)
Appeal to emotion: Using emotional manipulation to persuade instead of logical
Examples of Informal Fallacies: reasoning.
False dichotomy: Presenting only two options when there are more possibilities
Slippery slope fallacy: Assuming that one small action will inevitably lead to a chain
of increasingly disastrous events
Begging the question: Using the conclusion as a premise in an argument
Appeal to ignorance: Claiming something is true because there is no evidence to
disprove it
https://quizlet.com/1011373730/wgu-d265-critical-thinking-flash-cards/ 2/13
