PHIL447 final exam review questions and answers

Question 1.1. (TCO 1) What makes critical thinking critical? (Points : 4) It requires careful and deliberate work It is an analytic process It requires coming up with claims, true or otherwise It is the application of common sense to complex problems It offers guidance about critiquing thinking Question 2.2. (TCO 1, 2, 4) What is the first order of business when it comes to thinking critically about an issue? (Points : 4) Formulating a proposal Discovering whether the question is objective Determining exactly what the issue is Determining whether a fallacy is involved Realizing that all claims are equally valid Question 3.3. (TCOs 1, 2, 3) What activity is being attempted when making an argument? (Points : 4) Arguments attempt to persuade those who listen or read them. Arguments seek to win adherents to a position. Arguments seek to refute the positions of other people. Arguments attempt to support or prove conclusions. Arguments attempt to explain difficult concepts. Question 4.4. (TCOs 2, 3) For inductive arguments, how do we measure their quality as stronger or weaker? (Points : 4) Based on how much support their premises provide for the conclusion Based on requiring little translation into syllogistic form Based on their appearing in a standard form Based on the clear definition of critical words Based on the syllogism that can be formed from them Question 5.5. (TCO 1, 2) The mode of persuasion that Aristotle defined as pathos refers to arguments based on what? (Points : 4) Whether a decision is ethical Being alert to influences in one’s thinking The speaker’s personal attributes The audience’s emotions Using information and reasoning Question 6.6. (TCO 6) What is a likely reason for having trouble identifying a conclusion in what you hear or read? (Points : 4) There are too many rhetorical claims There is not enough background information The premise introduces a consideration that runs counter to common sense The conventions of argument are not being followed It could be that the passage is not an argument at all Question 7.7. (TCOs 6, 7, 8, 9) Which of the five items below is usually NOT a part of a good argumentative essay? (Points : 4) A statement of one's position on the issue Arguments that support one's position on the issue Rebuttals of arguments that support contrary positions on the issue An author's claim to speak with respected expertise based on qualifications or experience A statement of the issue Question 8.8. (TCOs 6, 8, 9) What is grouping ambiguity? (Points : 4) When one arbitrarily classifies people as a group for unclear purposes When people share an affinity that is not obvious When it is not clear whether a word is being used to refer to a group or to the individuals within a group When an author or speaker seeks a group to blame as a scapegoat When labeling classifications of people with epithets Question 9.9. (TCOs 2, 6, 7, 8) Which of the following would suggest a lack of credibility in a claim? (Points : 4) When it is accompanied by other claims that have credibility The claim conflicts with what we have observed When the person presenting the claim has something to gain by our believing it When it brings something we have not learned before When it comes from an interested party Question 10.10. (TCOs 1, 6, 7, 9) What is the purpose of the rhetorical device called a euphemism? (Points : 4) To replace ambiguous terms with clearer ones To hide the agenda of interested parties To replace another term with a neutral or positive expression instead of one with negative associations To replace vague terms with others that communicate more information To replace other expressions with new ones that are expected to be more acceptable Question 11.11. (TCOs 1, 7) What is the purpose of the rhetorical device called hyperbole? (Points : 4) Synonym for euphemism To bring humor to a difficult analysis Exaggerating for effect Sarcastic claim Based on unwarranted assumptions Question 12.12. (TCOs 1, 2) What is the personal ad hominem fallacy? (Points : 4) Attacking an argument based on the personal shortcomings of the one making the argument The status given to an argument based on the fame and good reputation of the originating person Attacking an argument based on the confusion of what the author has presented before Attacking an argument because of who presented it Attributing added value to an argument based on who has presented it Question 13.13. (TCOs 6, 7, 8) To the overall topic of burden of proof, what is the purpose of the rule called affirmative/negative plausibility? (Points : 4) Other things being equal, the burden of proof falls automatically on those supporting it affirmatively. Other things being equal, the burden of proof is shared by all parties that have a shared interest in the outcome. Other things being equal, the burden of proof rests with the parties with the most to lose. Other things being equal, the burden of proof rests with neither party automatically. Other things being equal, the first decision must be who must bear the burden of proof. Question 14.14. (TCOs 1, 2) What is a standard-form categorical claim? (Points : 4) The claim that the burden of proof must be shared because the evidence is too weak and indirect. A claim based on the primary documents of early philosophers. A claim that strictly follows Aristotle’s method. A claim that relies upon the orderly processes of biology. A claim that results from putting names or descriptions of classes into one of the AEIO forms. Question 15.15. (TCOs 3, 4) What is the purpose of a Venn Diagram? (Points : 4) To give a graphic illustration of standard-form claims To show how nouns and noun phrases relate To demonstrate the orderly processes of biology To show the primary characteristics of things To illustrate the classes of things Question 16.16. (TCOs 3, 4, 8, 9) What circumstances are necessary for two claims to be equivalent? (Points : 4) They would be true in all and exactly the same circumstances. They match perfectly in form but address differing topics. They match but one of the issues cannot be affirmed as true. They both give a graphic illustration of standard-form claims. They express differing relations within the same class or category. Question 17.17. (TCOs 2, 3, 4) Logical relationships between corresponding claims of standard-form categorical logic are illustrated in the graphic square of opposition. What is known about two claims when they are called contradictory claims? (Points : 4) They never have the same truth values. One is always false in the set. They always have the same truth values. They never share the same subject term. One is always true in the set. Question 18.18. (TCOs 2, 3, 4) How do we work the categorical operation called obversion? (Points : 4)