FINAL EXAM STUDY GUIDE

Availability Heuristic

We think of an event more often, thus making us more likely to assume the event is common. The news is an example.

Overconfidence Effect

We more often predict favorable performances for ourselves. We often judge our own abilities more favorably than others.

What does chapter 4 say are two questions that need to be asked about a claim which we are presented?

1. Does the claim conflict with our personal observations? - suspicion arises when a claim conflicts with our observations. - our observation can be impaired. - personal interests and biases can influence our judgment. - beliefs, hopes, fears and expectations can affect our judgment. 2. Does the claim conflict with our background information? - what we learn from others forms our background information. - we assign claims an INITIAL PLAUSABILITY. - claim that fits with our background info = high degree of initial plausibility. - claim conflicts with our background information = low degree of initial plausibility.

What are the two parts of an argument?

1. Premise 2. Conclusion

What are three guidelines for thinking critically about Generalizations from a Sample?

1. The more atypical the sample, the weaker the generalization. An atypical ("biased") sample is one that doesn't mirror or represent the overall population. It is one in which an important variable is disproportionately present or absent. 2. The less diversified the sample, the weaker the generalization. Of course, if a sample is too small, it cannot be sufficiently diversified. Thus we go to the next point. 3. Generalizations based on samples too small to accurately mirror the overall population are relatively weak. If, however, a population is likely to be homogeneous, such as the population of "tastes" in a pot of soup, or a population of ball bearings produced by the same machine, then even a small, undiversified sample is likely to be typical.

What is a causal statement?

A cause-and-effect or (for short) causal statement sets forth the cause of some event. Unfortunately, arguments and causal statements use overlapping vocabulary. This is an argument: The toilet is leaking because the floor is wet. This, however, is a causal statement: The floor is wet because the toilet is leaking. Casual explanations respond to questions that ask why something will happen; they provide a reason for an event and assert the existence of a cause of effect.

Gambler's Fallacy

A common and seductive mistake that happens when we do not realize that independent events really are independent. Independent events do not affect each other's outcome. Example: "The last three coin flips have all been heads, so the next flip is more likely to come up tails." It's true that four heads in a row is fairly unlikely (½ × ½ × ½ × ½ = 1⁄16 or 6.25 percent), but once the first three heads have come up, the odds of the fourth flip coming up heads is still 1 in 2, that is, 50 percent. Remember when dealing with independent events: past history has no effect.

How does the book define critical thinking?

In short, critical thinking is careful reasoning aimed at the formation of justified, true beliefs that can guide wise decisions and actions.

Loss Aversion

A corollary to negativity bias from economics is that people generally are more strongly motivated to avoid a loss than to accrue a gain, a bias known as loss aversion. Example: Focusing on one investment that has lost money while ignoring the other investments.

Overlooking Prior Probabilities

A fallacy that occurs when someone fails to take the underlying probabilities of an event into account. The prior probability of something is its probability everything else being equal. The prior probability of a coin flip coming up heads is 1 in 2, or .5. The prior probability of a given newborn baby's being male is also .5, since about 50 percent of newborns are male. The fallacy of Overlooking Prior Probabilities occurs when someone fails to take these underlying probabilities into account. Example: "Bill is the best football player in our high school, and Hal is the best hockey player in our high school. So it appears that Bill's chances of becoming a professional football player and Hal's chances of becoming a professional football player are equally good."

What is an interested party?

A person who stands to gain from our belief in a claim is known as an interested party, and interested parties must be viewed with much more suspicion than disinterested parties, who have no stake in our belief one way or another.

Proof Surrogate

A proof surrogate suggests there is evidence or authority for a claim without actually citing such evidence or authority. "Informed sources say..."

Red Herring/Smoke Screen

An irrelevancy brought in to "support" a claim or to distract one from the issue." "Yes, of course the President's strategy in Iraq is working. The Democrats sure haven't come up with anything better!"

What is the difference between a moral and nonmoral value judgment?

A source of confusion in discussions that involve moral reasoning is the word "moral." The word has two separate and distinct meanings. First, "moral" may be used as the opposite of "nonmoral." This is the sense in which we have been using the term. The claim "Christie weighs more than 200 pounds" is a nonmoral claim, meaning it has nothing to do with morality. "Christie is unprincipled" by contrast, has a lot to do with morality: It is a moral value judgment, a claim that expresses a moral value. The same is true of the claim, "Christie is principled." Moral value judgment: "It was wrong for the senator to withhold information." Nonmoral value judgment: "The senator dresses well."

What does chapter 4 say about how we should judge a person's expertise?

A source's knowledge depends on a number of factors, especially expertise and experience. • Education • Experience • Accomplishments • Reputation (in context) Among a group of people who know nothing about investments, someone who knows the difference between a 401(k) plan and a Roth IRA may seem like quite an expert. But you certainly wouldn't want to take investment advice from somebody simply on that basis Claims made by experts, those with special knowledge in a subject, are the most reliable, but the claims must pertain to the area of expertise and must not conflict with claims made by other experts in the same area.

Stereotypes

A stereotype is a cultural belief or idea about a social group's attributes, usually simplified or exaggerated. It can be positive or negative.

What is truth-functional logic?

A system of logic that specifies the logical relationships among truth-functional claims— claims whose truth values depend solely upon the truth values of their simplest component parts. In particular, propositional logic deals with the logical functions of the terms "not," "and," "or," "if . . . then," and so on.

Bandwagon Effect

A tendency to align our belief system with the belief systems of those around us. Sports are an example.

What is a value judgment?

A value judgment assesses the merit, desirability, or praiseworthiness of someone or something.

What are the four categorical claims?

A: All _____ are _____. (Example: All pianists are musicians.) E: No _____ are _____. (Example: No otterhounds are pianists.) I: Some _____ are _____. (Example: Some musicians are prodigies.) O: Some _____ are not _____. (Example: Some politicians are not criminals.*) The plural nouns (like "pianists") that go in the blanks are terms; the one that goes into the first blank is the subject term of the claim, and the one that goes into the second blank is the predicate term.

Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem fallacies are personal attacks on the messenger, with no relevance to the argument. "You are wrong, and by the way that shirt you are wearing is ugly"

Ridicule/Sarcasm

Also known as the horse laugh, this device includes ridicule and vicious humor of all kinds. "John McCain made a great speech last night. Everyone awakened feeling refreshed."

What is an Argument from Analogy?

An Argument from Analogy is an argument that something has an attribute because a similar thing has that attribute. Example: "Bill is a Democrat. Therefore, his brother Sam is a Democrat." The analogues in this argument are Bill and Sam. The conclusion-analogue (Sam) is argued to have the attribute of interest (being a Democrat) because the premise-analogue (Bill) is said to have it. The more similarities between the premise-analogue and the conclusion-analogue the stronger the argument, and the fewer the similarities (or the more the dissimilarities) the weaker the argument.

Slippery Slope

An argument that rests on an unsupported warning that is controversial and tendentious, to the effect that something will progress by degrees to an undesirable outcome. "No, I don't think we should tip servers 20 percent. The next thing you know we will be tipping them 25 percent, then 30 percent, then who knows what. We will be giving out our entire paycheck every time we eat out." "Raising the Pentagon's budget by 5 percent this year will just lead to a continuous 5 percent increase. In twenty years, the whole budget will go to the military!"

Generalizing from Exceptional Cases

Arriving at a general statement or rule by citing an atypical supporting case. "Animals will live longer if they are on a calorie-restricted diet. This has been shown in experiments with rats." "The police aren't required to get a search warrant if they arrest a suspect while a robbery is in progress and search him for a weapon. Therefore, they shouldn't be required to get a search warrant for any kind of search."

Hasty Generalization (Generalizing from too few cases)

Arriving at a general statement or rule by citing too few supporting cases. "The food in L.A. is lousy, judging from this meal." "The police stopped me for driving five miles over the speed limit. Around here they will stop you for everything."

What is categorical logic?

Categorical logic is logic based on the relations of inclusion and exclusion among classes (or "categories") as stated in categorical claims.

What is meant by weighing evidence?

Coming up with a causal hypothesis involves weighing evidence. The car isn't starting. Why? Well, we heard funny clicking sounds when we tried to start it, the kind associated with having a battery that is almost dead. Unfortunately, we also noticed gas fumes, like when an engine is flooded. We noticed other anomalies: we had just filled up with a new brand of gas; the steering wheel won't unlock; it is unusually cold out; and so forth. We had just installed a new radio, too. Could that have anything to do with the problem? In real life, forming a hypothesis is not as simple as the preceding three principles suggest. We have to weigh things. For example, the association between clicking sounds and almost-dead batteries is more significant than the fact that the steering wheel won't unlock, or even that gasoline could be smelled. The smell of gasoline, which often accompanies engine flooding, might be explained by the fact we just filled up. We'd check battery connections and hope for the best.

Poisoning the Well

Dismissing someone before they have made their statement or argument. "President Trump is going to give a talk tonight on COVID-19. Well, it's just gonna be more baloney. That guy will say anything to get a vote."

Downplayers

Downplayers attempt to make someone or something look less important or less significant. "These self-appointed experts on the environment are just trying to scare us."

What is a Venn Diagram?

Each of the standard forms has its own visual illustration in a Venn diagram. Named after British logician John Venn, these diagrams graphically represent the four standard-form categorical claim types.

Heuristics

General rules we unconsciously follow in estimating probabilities.

Hyperbole

Hyperbole is extravagant overstatement, or exaggeration. "The Democrats want everyone to be on welfare" "Is Deborah generous? She'd give you her life savings if she thought you were in need."

Argument by Force

IDK what is meant by argument by force but I assume it may be rhetorical force OR There is another term called "APPEAL TO FORCE FALLACY" not mentioned in the book. It is also called argumentun ad baculum. It is when when force, coercion, or even a threat of force is used in place of a reason in an attempt to justify a conclusion.

Perfectionist Fallacy

Ignoring options between perfection and nothing. Since something can't be perfect, it should not be done at all. "Since gun laws can't prevent shootings, we should not have any gun restrictions." "A single English course won't make anyone a great writer, so I don't see why we have to take one." note: be careful, this may be confused with false dilemma fallacy.

What are Web checkers and give an example of one?

Many dubious news reports are checked by one or more of various fact-checking outlets, perhaps the best known of which are (in alphabetical order): ■ Factcheck.org ■ New York Times ■ Politifact (Poynter Institute) ■ Snopes ■ Washington Post

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

Means "After this, therefore because of it." A speaker or writer commits this fallacy when he or she assumes that the fact that one event came after another establishes that it was caused by the other. "After I took Zicam my cold went away fast. Therefore, taking Zicam caused my cold to go away fast." "Every day the sun comes up right after the rooster crows; therefore, the rooster causes the sun to come up."

Briefly explain the differences between objective and subjective claims.

OBJECTIVE: • Its truth depends on objective fact, not on what you think. • "There are over 300 students in this class." • Claims can be stated objectively, but still be false! For example:"I am 20ft tall." SUBJECTIVE: • Its truth depends on what you think; if you think it is true, it's true for you, and you can't be mistaken. • "I look better in red than blue"

False Dilemma Fallacy

Offering a conclusion as the only alternative to something we find unacceptable or unattainable. "Either we increase the number of troops in Iraq or the terrorists will be attacking U.S. cities. Seems like a simple choice to me."

Give one example of a cognitive bias.

Overconfidence Effect Example: An individual who thinks they are much smarter than they actually are is a person who is overconfident. The person could show their overconfidence by choosing not to study for tests, thinking that they're so smart that they don't really have to study. As a result, they could end up with much lower scores than they could otherwise have received.

What are two principles of moral reasoning?

Principle 1. If separate cases aren't different in any relevant way, then they should be treated the same way, and if separate cases are treated the same way, they should not be different in any relevant way. Principle 2. If someone appears to be violating the consistency principle, then the burden of proof is on that person to show that he or she is in fact not violating the principle.

What is generalizing from a sample?

Reasoning that all, most, or some percentage of the members of a population have an attribute because all, most, or some percentage of a sample of the population have that attribute.

Confirmation Bias

Refers to the tendency to attach more weight to evidence that supports our viewpoint. Example: If you are a Democrat, you may view evidence that Fox News is biased as overwhelming; if you are a Republican you may regard the same evidence as weak and unconvincing.

What is a person's "background knowledge" and background information?

Reports must always be evaluated against our background information—that immense body of beliefs we have that consists of facts we learn from our own direct observations and facts we learn from others. Such information is "background" because we may not be able to specify where we learned it, unlike something we know because we witnessed it this morning. Much of our background information is well confirmed by a variety of sources. Reports that conflict with this store of information— our "priors," as statisticians say—are usually quite properly subject to doubt, even if we cannot disprove them through direct observation. We immediately reject the claim "Palm trees grow in abundance near the North Pole" as highly improbable even though we are not in a position to confirm or disprove the statement by direct observation. Unfortunately, there are no neat formulas that can resolve conflicts between what we already believe and new information.** Our job as a critical thinker is to use our background information when considering claims that conflict with that information— that is, claims with low initial plausibility—but at the same time to keep an open mind and realize that further information may cause us to give up a claim we had thought was true. It's a difficult balance, but it's worth trying to get right.

What is an attribute of interest in samples?

Researchers follow methods in order to ensure their samples meet scientific standards. Attributes of research samples includes key demographic and medical information.

Loaded Questions

Rests on an assumption. A question that implies an answer. "When did you stop cheating on your girl friend?"

Repetition

Saying the same thing over and over. Information that is repeated is more likely to be accepted by the mind as familiar. Putting campaign signs up everywhere is a form of repetition.

What is balance of considerations reasoning and an IBE?

Should I get a dog? Miss class to attend my cousin's wedding? Get chemo? Much everyday reasoning requires weighing considerations for and against thinking or doing something. Such reasoning, called BALANCE OF CONSIDERATIONS reasoning, often contains both deductive and inductive elements. Example: "Should assault weapons be banned? On the one hand, doing that would violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But on the other hand, when guns were outlawed in Australia the number of accidental gun deaths fell dramatically; that would probably happen here, too. It is a tough call." • The first consideration mentioned in this passage—that banning assault weapons would violate the Second Amendment and therefore should not be done—is a deductive argument. • The second consideration mentioned—that banning assault weapons would reduce the number of accidental gun deaths—is an inductive argument. ■ Inference to the Best Explanation(IBE): An inductive argument that concludes that something is the case because it is the best explanation of something else that is the case. • If it doesn't make sense to think of an argument as providing evidence or support for a contention, it is probably because it is a deductive argument. • Inductive arguments are not used to establish subjective judgments. • Inductive arguments and deductive arguments can have unstated premises. • Whether an argument is deductive or inductive may depend on what the unstated premise is said to be. • If an argument is written, diagramming it may help you understand it. • Balance of considerations reasoning often involves deductive and inductive elements.

Who do we commonly miscalculate independent events?

Sometimes, if it isn't a coin flip or a card game, it is very difficult to determine what the odds of a given event happening are. But our understanding of probabilities is further diminished by a failure to calculate probabilities correctly when more than one event is in question.

Give an example of an Argument from Analogy.

Strong analogy: Cheryl and Denise are teenage sisters. They attend the same school, watch the same TV shows, like the same music and You Tube videos, and have many friends in common. Cheryl likes Superman movies. Therefore, Denise will like Superman movies. Weak analogy: Batman and Superman are both super-heroes. Superman can fly. Therefore, Batman can fly.

Innuendo

Suggesting you are not saying something (but you are). Innuendo uses the power of suggestion to disparage (say something bad about) someone or something. "I didn't say Bush invaded Iraq to help his buddies in the oil industry. I just said his buddies have done very well since the invasion."

Scare Tactics Fallacy

The Scare Tactics fallacy occurs when a speaker or writer tries to scare us into accepting an irrelevant conclusion. "Buy Michelin tires. Don't risk your children's safety by buying inferior brands."

Straw Man Fallacy

The Straw Man fallacy occurs when a speaker or writer attempts to dismiss a contention by distorting or misrepresenting it. "What do I think about outlawing large ammunition clips? I think the idea of disarming everyone is ridiculous and dangerous." YOU: I think we should legalize medical marijuana. YOUR FRIEND: Maybe you think everyone should go around stoned, but I think that's absurd.

What is a population in a sample?

The entire set of people or data that are of interest to the researcher.

What is consequentialism (utilitarianism)?

The perspective known as consequentialism is the view that the consequences of a decision, deed, or policy determine its moral value. If an action produces better consequences than the alternatives, then it is the better action, morally speaking. One of the most important versions of this view is utilitarianism, which says that, if an act will produce more happiness than will alternatives, it is the right thing to do, and if it will produce less happiness, it would be wrong to do it in place of an alternative that would produce more happiness. In short, act so as to produce the most happiness.

What is duty theory AKA deontologlism?

The view that a person should perform an action because it is his or her moral duty to perform it, not because of any consequences that might follow from it. Also called Deontologism. Immanuel Kant - "One should act and decide out of moral and ethical obligation, not just for the outcome"

Overlooking False Positives

This falls under the category of "overlooking prior probabilities" A fallacy that occurs when someone fails to take the underlying probabilities of an event into account. note: I could be wrong on this one, it isn't in the book.

In-Group bias

We view groups that we are part of disproportionately favorable compared to groups we are not part of. Countries are an example.

What is a causal hypothesis?

• A causal hypothesis is a tentative claim—a statement offered for further investigation or testing. • Three principles are useful in arriving at causal hypotheses: the paired unusual events principle, the common variable principle, and the covariation principle. "As soon as my throat got scratchy I took Zicam. My sore throat went away and I never caught a cold. Therefore, maybe Zicam prevents colds." • Confirmation of a causal hypothesis often is an attempt to show that the suspected cause is the condition but for which the phenomenon of interest would not have happened. • Three forms of reasoning are useful in confirming causal hypotheses: randomized controlled experiments, prospective observational studies, and retrospective observational studies.

What are stereotypes and how are they sometimes used as a rhetorical device?

• A stereotype is a cultural belief or idea about a social group's attributes, usually simplified or exaggerated. It can be positive or negative. • Bottom line: Undeniably, some stereotypes carry much rhetorical force, but they have no evidentiary or probative (tendency to prove) force. Rhetoric that contains them may be persuasive psychologically, but it is neither strengthened nor weakened logically.

Negativity Bias

• A tendency to weight negative information more heavily than positive information. • Do you find it easy to believe a nasty rumor about someone? • Negative reviews vs. positive?

Why is vagueness the most common form of unclear thinking or writing?

• A word or phrase is vague if we cannot say with certainty what it includes and excludes. • Vagueness occurs in varying degrees, and it is impossible to get rid of it entirely. • Vagueness is a matter of degree; what matters is not being too vague for the purposes at hand. • We live comfortably with vagueness in much of what we say. "Butte City is a small town" presents no problems under ordinary circumstances, despite the vagueness of "small town." • Problems arise with vagueness when there is too much of it, as in our previous direction-giving example. Suppose it's late and you're looking for someone's house and you're instructed, "go down this street a ways until you get to the first major intersection, make a sharp right, then, when the street starts to curve to the left, you'll be there." The vagueness in these directions is more likely to get your blood pressure up than to help you find your destination. "Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize until you have tried to make it precise." —BERTRAND RUSSEL

What are euphemisms and dysphemisms and give an example of each?

• Euphemism: a neutral or positive expression used in place of one that carries negative associations. "gentleman's club" • A dysphemism is used to produce a negative effect on someone's attitude about something, or to tone down the positive associations it may have. "junk food" "geezer"

What is Virtue Ethics?

• Focuses not on what to do but on how to be. • Being trained and committed to having virtuous, moral, and ethical traits To find an excellent example of virtue ethics, one need look no further than the Boy Scout pledge. A Boy Scout doesn't pledge to do or to refrain from doing this or that particular action; instead, he pledges to be a certain kind of person. He pledges to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, brave, and so forth. This is a list of "virtues," or traits of character. A person who has them is disposed by habit to act in certain ways and not to act in others.

Why is ambiguity a major concern in critical thinking?

• Having more than one meaning; an ambiguous claim is one that can be interpreted in more than one way and whose meaning is not made clear by the context. • Clarity of language is extremely important to the ability to think critically. • Clarity of language can often be lost as a result of multiple causes, including, importantly, vagueness, ambiguity, and generality.

Explain the two kinds of arguments.

• INDUCTIVE argument: Logic of support. An argument SUPPORTS a conclusion if it makes the conclusion more likely. The more likely it makes the conclusion, the STRONGER the argument. • DEDUCTIVE argument: Logic of proof. A DEDUCTIVE argument attempts to prove a conclusion. When we try to prove/demonstrate a conclusion, we use DEDUCTION.

Miscalculating Probabilities

• Incorrectly Combining the Probability of Independent Events • Gambler's Fallacy • Overlooking Prior Probabilities

What is moral subjectivism?

• Is the idea that moral opinions, such as "Bullfighting is morally wrong" or "Jason shouldn't lie to his parents," are subjective judgments. • It is the idea, in other words, that if you think bullfighting is morally wrong, then it is morally wrong for you and you don't need to consider any further truth. • It is the idea expressed by Hamlet in the famous passage, "There is nothing either good or bad, but that thinking makes it so." + not all moral value claims are subjective "It's fine for him to torture dogs." SUBJECTIVISM. If he thinks it isn't bad, then it isn't. "It's not fine for him to torture dogs no matter what he thinks." This view implies that questions of good and bad are OBJECTIVE.

What is moral relativism?

• One popular view of ethics, especially perhaps among undergraduates taking a first course in philosophy, is moral relativism, the idea that what is right and wrong depends on and is determined by one's group or culture. • Base trust in what our groups, cultures and societies value • What is right may differ from group to group Example: A woman steals a loaf of bread to feed her starving children Relative-Even though she broke the law, her circumstances (starving kids) are more important

Cause and Effect Fallacies

• Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc • Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

What are random samples, error margins, and confidence levels?

• Random sample: A random sample is one selected by a procedure that gives every member of a population an equal chance of being included. • Error margin: Expresses the range of random variation from sample to sample. Note that the larger the random sample size (the larger n is), the smaller the error margin. • Confidence level: Expresses the probability that samples of a given size will have values within that error margin.A larger random sample gives you either a smaller error margin or a higher confidence level.

What is religious relativism and absolutism?

• Religious Relativism: The belief that what is right and wrong is whatever one's religious culture or society deems. The problems attending this view are the same as those for other versions of relativism. First, what counts as a religious culture or society and as membership within one? Are Baptists and Catholics part of the same culture? Are you a Christian even if you never attend church? Second, even within a single culture, conflicting moral views are likely to be found. When the Presbyterian Church voted in 2015 to recognize same-sex marriage, the vote was not unanimous. • Religious Absolutism: which maintains that the correct moral principles are those accepted by the "correct" religion. A problem, of course, we cannot say which, if any, religion is the correct one.

Appeal to Tradition, Common Practice, Popularity

• Sometimes speakers and writers try to justify a practice on the grounds that is traditional or is commonly practiced. The Mistaken Appeal to Common Practice (sometimes called Mistaken Appeal to Tradition) "This is the right way; it's the way it has always been done." According to Representative Steve King of Iowa, "Equal protection [under the Constitution] is not equal protection for same sex couples to marry. Equal protection has always been for a man and a woman to be able to get married to each other." • The fallacy known as Mistaken Appeal to Popularity (sometimes called Mistaken Appeal to Common Belief) happens when a speaker or writer treats an issue that cannot be settled by public opinion as if it can. "The Iranians have nuclear weapons. Everyone knows that." "Almost everyone knows that plastic is contaminating the oceans. Therefore, plastic is contaminating the oceans."

What does the book say about evaluating the credibility of websites?

• The Internet also has tremendous potential to spread misinformation. The news it provides must be evaluated with even more caution than information from the print media, radio, or television. • There are basically two kinds of information sources on the Internet. The first consists of commercial and institutional sources; the second, of individual and group sites on the World Wide Web. The first category includes sources like the LexisNexis facility and other databases, governmental and educational institutions, as well as the online services provided by the major news media. The second category includes everything else you'll find on the web—an amazing assortment of good information, entertainment of widely varying quality, hot tips, advertisements, come-ons, fraudulent offers, and outright lies. Information is only as good as its source. Anyone can say anything on the Internet. • A general rule: A flashy design with attractive colors and design features is no substitute for information that is backed up by references and put forward by people with appropriate credentials.

How does sample size affect error margins and confidence levels?

• The larger the random sample, the smaller the error margin, at a given confidence level. • The larger the random sample, the higher the confidence level, at a given error margin.

What is the emotive meaning (or rhetorical force) of words?

• The power of a word or phrase or argument or passage to persuade, by arousing feelings or emotions. • Words and expressions have more than a literal or "dictionary" meaning. They also have what is known as emotive meaning or rhetorical force (these being the same thing). This is their power to express and elicit various psychological and emotional responses. For example: "elderly gentleman" and "old codger" evoke different emotions, the first pleasing and the second less so.

What are cognitive biases?

• The unconscious features of human psychology affecting belief formation that have been reasonably well established include several that are widely referred to as cognitive biases. • They skew our apprehension of reality and interfere with our ability to think clearly, process information accurately, and reason objectively.

What is the appeal to precedent in legal reasoning?

• This is the practice of using a case that has already been decided as an authoritative guide in deciding a new case that is similar. • The appeal to precedent is none other than an argument by analogy, in which the current case is argued to be sufficiently like the previous case to warrant deciding it in the same way. • Appeal to precedent also assumes the consistency principle that is found in moral reasoning: Cases that aren't relevantly different must be treated the same way. To treat similar cases differently would be illogical; it would also be unjust.

What are methods used to help confirm causal hypotheses?

• Three forms of reasoning are useful in confirming causal hypotheses: 1. Randomized controlled experiments: Subjects are randomly assigned either to an "experimental group" (E) or a "control" (C), which differ from one another in only one respect: subjects in the E group are subjected to the suspected cause. 2. Prospective observational studies: The frequency of an outcome(such as having low GPAs) in a group of subjects who have the suspected cause (attending parties on most weekend) is compared to the frequency of the outcome in a group of subjects who do not have the suspected cause. 3. Retrospective observational studies: One reasons retrospectively or "backward" from an outcome of interest to a suspected cause of it. In one of two comparison groups, the outcome is universally present. In the other, it is universally absent. Both groups are then checked to see if there is a significant difference in the frequency of the suspected cause. note: refer to p.395 for more context

What makes an argument stronger or weaker?

■ A deductive argument is used to demonstrate or prove a conclusion, which it does if it is sound. ■ An argument is sound if it is valid and its premise (or premises) is true. ■ An argument is valid if it isn't possible for its premise or premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. ■ An inductive argument is used to support rather than to demonstrate a conclusion. ■ An argument supports a conclusion if it increases the likelihood that the conclusion is true. ■ Support is a matter of degrees: An argument supports a conclusion to the extent its premise (or premises) makes the conclusion likely. ■ An argument that offers more support for a conclusion is said to be stronger than one that offers less support; the latter is said to be weaker than the former. ■ Some instructors use the word "strong" in an absolute sense to denote inductive arguments whose premise (or premises) makes the conclusion more likely than not.