5/9/25, 8:20 PM WGU D265 CRITICAL THINKING REASON AND EVIDENCE OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT EXAM | Quizlet
Name: 108 Multiple choice questions
Score:
Term 1 of 108
How would you define a good and bad argument?
An inference from a premise to another premise.
Machine-learning technology (ai) to create surprisingly convincing video and audio. Some information is just fake: it has
been created to support a particular narrative or ideology.
An argument is good if the premises support the conclusion as well. It is bad if they don't.
(NOTE: a bad argument is still an argument, regardless if the premises are true/make sense)
A single inference with many conjoint or mutually dependent premises
In other words: the premises work together to support the conclusion
,5/9/25, 8:20 PM WGU D265 CRITICAL THINKING REASON AND EVIDENCE OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT EXAM | Quizlet
Term 2 of 108
What are the 2 types of Deductively Valid Logical Forms?
(HINT: these are closely related to the fallacious arguments)
1) Appeal to Unqualified/False Authority
2) Appeal to Force
3) Appeal to Popularity/to the People/Bandwagon
4) Appeal to Consequences
1) Modus Ponens: aka Affirming the Antecedent
2) Modus Tollens: aka Denying the Consequent
Premises are meant to back up conclusions, so if the premises are true, we should believe the conclusion is true too.
Simple = does NOT contain internal logical structure. True or false on their own.
Complex = contains internal logical structure
,5/9/25, 8:20 PM WGU D265 CRITICAL THINKING REASON AND EVIDENCE OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT EXAM | Quizlet
Definition 3 of 108
1) Being Curious and Thinking Creatively (taking extra steps before settling into a belief)
2) Separating the Thinker from the Position (able to discuss w/o judging or stuck in our viewpoint)
3) Knowing Oneself Enough to Avoid Biases and Errors of Thought (awareness of flaws & cognitive bias)
4) Having Intellectual Honesty, Humility, and Charity (Honest in what we know/don't know. Humble to recognize what we don't
understand. Charitable in assuming our opponents mean well & have strong arguments).
5) Understanding Arguments, Reasons, and Evidence (thinking carefully abt thinking, arguments and positions)
What is the distinction between deductive and inductive inferences?
(HINT: must or probably)
Critical thinking involves many practices, such as:
(HINT: there are 5 listed)
What is the Logical Relationship between a premise and a conclusion?
What do the statements that follow "IF" and "THEN" represent in a conditional statement?
, 5/9/25, 8:20 PM WGU D265 CRITICAL THINKING REASON AND EVIDENCE OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT EXAM | Quizlet
Term 4 of 108
What is a Red Herring Fallacy?
How can you differentiate this with the Straw Man Fallacy?
Valid: where the truth of the premises would guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Invalid: where the truth of the premises is meant to guarantee the truth of the conclusion, but fails to do so.
Where you intentionally or unintentionally change the subject to avoid the real issue at hand
In Straw Man, the offender is attacking an irrelevant argument. While in Red herring, the offender INTRODUCES an
irrelevant topic
Trying to interpret someone's reasoning in the best possible light and not to immediately assume that someone else's
beliefs must be due to bias.
A fallacy when someone already knows which conclusion they'd like to prove and then selects evidence which supports that
conclusion (a backwards process).
NOTE: aka Fallacy of Cherry-Picking Evidence
Name: 108 Multiple choice questions
Score:
Term 1 of 108
How would you define a good and bad argument?
An inference from a premise to another premise.
Machine-learning technology (ai) to create surprisingly convincing video and audio. Some information is just fake: it has
been created to support a particular narrative or ideology.
An argument is good if the premises support the conclusion as well. It is bad if they don't.
(NOTE: a bad argument is still an argument, regardless if the premises are true/make sense)
A single inference with many conjoint or mutually dependent premises
In other words: the premises work together to support the conclusion
,5/9/25, 8:20 PM WGU D265 CRITICAL THINKING REASON AND EVIDENCE OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT EXAM | Quizlet
Term 2 of 108
What are the 2 types of Deductively Valid Logical Forms?
(HINT: these are closely related to the fallacious arguments)
1) Appeal to Unqualified/False Authority
2) Appeal to Force
3) Appeal to Popularity/to the People/Bandwagon
4) Appeal to Consequences
1) Modus Ponens: aka Affirming the Antecedent
2) Modus Tollens: aka Denying the Consequent
Premises are meant to back up conclusions, so if the premises are true, we should believe the conclusion is true too.
Simple = does NOT contain internal logical structure. True or false on their own.
Complex = contains internal logical structure
,5/9/25, 8:20 PM WGU D265 CRITICAL THINKING REASON AND EVIDENCE OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT EXAM | Quizlet
Definition 3 of 108
1) Being Curious and Thinking Creatively (taking extra steps before settling into a belief)
2) Separating the Thinker from the Position (able to discuss w/o judging or stuck in our viewpoint)
3) Knowing Oneself Enough to Avoid Biases and Errors of Thought (awareness of flaws & cognitive bias)
4) Having Intellectual Honesty, Humility, and Charity (Honest in what we know/don't know. Humble to recognize what we don't
understand. Charitable in assuming our opponents mean well & have strong arguments).
5) Understanding Arguments, Reasons, and Evidence (thinking carefully abt thinking, arguments and positions)
What is the distinction between deductive and inductive inferences?
(HINT: must or probably)
Critical thinking involves many practices, such as:
(HINT: there are 5 listed)
What is the Logical Relationship between a premise and a conclusion?
What do the statements that follow "IF" and "THEN" represent in a conditional statement?
, 5/9/25, 8:20 PM WGU D265 CRITICAL THINKING REASON AND EVIDENCE OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT EXAM | Quizlet
Term 4 of 108
What is a Red Herring Fallacy?
How can you differentiate this with the Straw Man Fallacy?
Valid: where the truth of the premises would guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Invalid: where the truth of the premises is meant to guarantee the truth of the conclusion, but fails to do so.
Where you intentionally or unintentionally change the subject to avoid the real issue at hand
In Straw Man, the offender is attacking an irrelevant argument. While in Red herring, the offender INTRODUCES an
irrelevant topic
Trying to interpret someone's reasoning in the best possible light and not to immediately assume that someone else's
beliefs must be due to bias.
A fallacy when someone already knows which conclusion they'd like to prove and then selects evidence which supports that
conclusion (a backwards process).
NOTE: aka Fallacy of Cherry-Picking Evidence
