Critical Thinking Chapters 8, 10, & 11

modus ponens

affirming the antecedent: premise: if A, then B premise: A conclusion: therefore, B

causal reasoning

an event is claimed to be the result of an occurrence of another event

metaphor

an implied comparison between basically dissimilar things for the purpose of illuminating an understanding of the things being compared

red herring

committed by introducing an irrelevant topic in order to divert attention from the original issue being discussed

analogy

comparison between things that are basically dissimilar, for the purpose of illuminating an understanding of the things being compared

modus tollens

denying the consequent: premise: if A, then B premise: not B conclusion: therefore, not A

appeal to flattery

designed to influence the thinking of others by appealing itself to their vanity as a substitute for providing relevant evidence to support your point of view

interactive pattern

different factors can relate to one another through reciprocal influences that flow back and forth from one to the other

sweeping generalization

focuses on difficulties in the process of interpreting

process relationship

focuses on relating and organizing the steps in the growth or development of an event or object

predictive power

hypothesis should allow you to make various predictions to test its accuracy

explanatory power

hypothesis should effectively explain the event you're investigating

economy

hypothesis should not be unnecessarily complex

invalid argument

if the reasons don't support the conclusion

appeal to personal attack

ignoring the issues of the argument and focusing instead on the personal qualities of the person making the argument

word claim

provides a visual representation of the frequency at which keywords and concepts occur in a variety of contexts and is used for organizing and categorizing various types of textual information

post hoc ergo propter hoc

refers to situations in which, because two things occur close together in time, we assume that one caused the other

analogical modes of thinking

relates things in different categories in terms of their similarities

comparative modes of thinking

relates things in the same general category in terms of their similarities and differences

bandwagon

relies on uncritical acceptance of others opinions because "everyone believes it"

begging the question

the premises of the argument assume or include the claim that the conclusion is true

appeal to pity

the reasons offered to believed and support the conclusions may indeed be true; the reasons are designed to make us feel sorry for the person involved and therefore agree with the conclusion out of sympathy

dialogue

the systematic exchange of ideas

reasoning

the type of thinking that uses arguments

inferring

thinking process you use to reason based on what you already know in order to form new knowledge or beliefs

narrative

way of thinking and communicating in which someone tells a story about experiences he or she has had

misidentification of the cause

what is the cause and what is the effect

sound argument

when an argument includes both valid structure and true reasons

unsound argument

when an argument is invalid

questionable cause

when someone presents a casual relationship for which no real evidence exists (ex. mirror breaks, seven years of bad luck)

valid argument

when the reasons support the conclusion so that the conclusion follows from the reasons being offered

scientific method

works on the assumption that the world is constructed in a complex web of casual relationships that can be discovered through systematic investigation

hasty generalization

a general conclusion has been reached based on a very small sample; as a result, the samples provide very weak support for the conclusions that are being developed

empirical generalization

a major type of inductive reasoning that is defined as reasoning from a limited sample to a general conclusion based on the sample

appeal to tradition

argues that a practice to way of thinking is "better" or "right" simply because it is older, or it has "always been done that way"

deductive reasoning

argument form in which one reasons from premises that are known or assumed to be true to a conclusion that follows necessarily from the premises

inductive reasoning

argument form in which one reasons from premises that are known or assumed to be true to a conclusion that is supported by the premises but does not follow logically from them

fallacies

arguments that are not sound because of various errors in reasoning

incomplete comparisons

arises when we focus on too few points of comparison

straw man

attacking someones point of view by creating an exaggerated straw man version of the position, and then you knock down the straw man you just created

two wrongs make a right

attempts to justify a morally questionable action by arguing that it is a response to another wrong action, either real or imagined-in effect, that two wrongs make a right

causal relationships

causal patterns of thinking involve relating events in terms of the influence or effect they have on one another

interactive causes

causal relationships rarely operate in isolation, but instead often influence other factors

contributory causes

causes can act simultaneously to produce an effect

appeal to fear

conclusions being suggested are supported by fear, not by reasons that provide evidence for the conclusions

appeal to authorities

insisting a claim is true simply because a valid authority on the issue said it was true

cue words

key words that signal a reason is being offered in support of a conclusion or that a conclusion is being asserted

special pleading

occurs when someone makes him or herself a special exception, without sound justification, to the reasonable application of standards, principles, or expectations

false dilemma

occurs when we are asked to choose between two extreme alternatives without being able to consider additional options

selective comparisons

occurs when you take one-sided view of a comparative situation-when you concentrate on the points favoring one side of the things being compared but overlook the points favoring the other side

causal chain

one thing leads to another, which then leads to another, and so on

slippery slope

one undesirable actions will inevitably lead to a worse actions, which will necessarily lead to a worse one still

process mode of thinking

organizes an activity into a series of steps

chronological pattern of thinking

organizes something into a series of events in the sequence in which they occurred

reasons/premises

the main ideas that make up an argument

appeal to ignorance

the person offering the conclusion is asking his or her opponent to disprove the conclusion

evaluating arguments

to construct effective arguments you'll need to ask yourself two questions: 1) assuming that the reasons/premises are true, would they actually demonstrate that the conclusion is true? 2) how true are the reasons being offered to support the conclusion?

process analysis

trying to achieve one or both of two goals; giving step-by-step instruction in how to perform an activity and giving information about a process