Critical Thinking Skills TEST

The test has 1 short writing questions, 11 Multiple choice questions, and 5 True/False questions.

I uploaded the TEST.

I uploaded the study materials (PDF/Videos)

critical thinkingskills

Thomas Francis University • Course G120 • Segment 2

DEDUCTIVE VS.
INDUCTIVE REASONING

—Douglas R. Kelley, PhD, CH, CSL

Updated: October 11, 2021

Upon Completion of this Segment, You Will Know:

• The nature of deductive reasoning.

• The nature of inductive reasoning.

• Formal vs. informal reasoning.

• The meaning of “inference” vs. “implied.”

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to
entertain a thought without accepting it.

— Aristotle

will be the first to admit that trying to understand the differences between deductive and

inductive reasoning can be quite daunting—especially if one conducts research online. Most of

the explanations are either hopelessly ambiguous or they are outdated. Some describe deduc-

tive and inductive reasoning as opposites, which is not entirely true. Either way, one wonders if

anyone with an IQ below 4,000,000 truly comprehends the differences in all of their various forms.

To make things worse, some dictionaries define “deductive reasoning” as going from the general

to specific, and “inductive reasoning” as going from the specific to the general. However, these

definitions are rather outdated because the opposites can also be true.1 Furthermore, these diction-

ary definitions are difficult to understand in practical terms. Fortunately, there are better and easier-

to-understand definitions available that actually make sense.

Some ways to remember the difference between deductive and inductive thinking are:

1. With deductive thinking, if the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to also

be true. If you change the premise(s), you also change the con

clusion.

2. With inductive thinking, if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to also be

true. If you change the premise(s), you may or may not also change the conclusion.

3. Deductive thinking deals with the “what” whereas inductive thinking deals with the

“why and how.”

1 The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/.

Segment 2: Deductive vs.

Inductive Reasoning

4. And my favorite is how Jessica G., one of my students, described it on her final exam

for this course: “Deductive reasoning deals with facts. Inductive reasoning deals with

possibilities.”

Deductive Reasoning

A valid deductive argument is one that, if the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to

also be true. Therefore, the conclusion naturally and necessarily follows the premises. For example:

1. All men have minds. (true premise)

2. DaVinci was a man. (true premise)

3. DaVinci had a mind. (

true conclusion)

So in a nutshell, deductive reasoning means arriving at a guaranteed conclusion based on facts. It

should also be noted that in deductive reasoning, if you change the premise(s), you change the con-

clusion.

A key indication that an argument is deductive rather than inductive is if words such as must,

certainly, and necessarily are used in the argument.

Two other components of deductive arguments are known as validity and soundness. The example

above is considered to be valid and sound. While these two components are rather simple conceptu-

ally, they can be difficult to grasp. Adding to the confusion is that the words “valid” and “sound”

generally mean the same thing in everyday language. To keep it simple, think of these words more

as designations (names) than definitions when describing a deductive argument. Let me explain each

one separately.

An argument is “valid” if and only if it is logically impossible for its conclusion to be false when

all of its premises are true.1 The use of the word “valid” here is simply referring to the form the

argument takes. For example, consider the form of the same example I just used:

Example 1: Valid Argument

1. All A are B;

2. C is equal to A;

3. Therefore, C is equal to B.

1. All men (A) have minds (B). (true premise)

2. DaVinci (C) was a man (A). (true premise)

3. DaVinci (C) had a mind (B). (true conclusion)

With this example, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. Therefore, this

argument is considered to have a valid form and is called a “valid” argument.

Conversely, an argument is “invalid” if it is logically possible for its conclusion to be false even

when all of its premises are true. Again, the use of the word “invalid” here is simply referring to the

form the argument takes. An example of invalid form from Example 1 would be:

1 California State University, Northridge, http://www.csun.edu/~vcoao087/200/Validity .

Segment 2: Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning

Example 2: Invalid Argument

1. All A are B;

2. C is equal to B;

3. Therefore, C is equal to A.

1. All men (A) have minds (B). (true premise)

2. DaVinci (C) had a mind (B). (true premise)

3. DaVinci (C) was a man (A). (not necessarily a

true conclusion)

At first glance, the second example still seems to make sense. However, what if we are talking

about DaVinci’s mother? It’s a possibility and therefore, the argument is “invalid” because the con-

clusion could be false even though the premises are true. Of course, one or more of the premises

could also be false, but it wouldn’t change anything. The argument would still be considered “inva-

lid.” Please also note that the format of the argument on the left side of Example 2 is good. The

problem is with the wording on the right side.

Again, an argument is “valid” if and only if it is logically impossible for its conclusion to be false

when all of its premises are true. With this in mind, it is important to note that just because the

premises are false doesn’t mean that the form of the argument is invalid. You have to think of a valid

argument in this way: If the premises were in fact true, then the conclusion would also be true. To

illustrate this, ponder the examples of valid arguments below.1 If the premises were in fact true,

then the conclusion would be true as well. Don’t let the fact that some of the premises are false

confuse you. All we’re looking at here is the form of the argument. We do not yet care if the premises

are right or wrong (that will come next).

Example 31 Example 41

All whales are fish. (False)

All fish are cold-blooded. (True)

Therefore, all whales are cold-blooded. (False)

All whales are fish. (False)

All fish live in water. (True)

So, all whales live in water. (True)

Example 51 Example 61

All whales are fish. (False)

All fish suckle their young. (False)

Therefore, all whales suckle their young. (True)

All whales are mammals. (True)

All mammals suckle their young. (True)

So, all whales suckle their young. (True)

Each of these arguments represents valid form even though some have false premises and one has

a false conclusion. Each argument is valid because if all its premises were in fact true, its conclusion

would also have to be true. Take number 3 above for example. If it were true that whales are fish,

and if fish are cold blooded, then the conclusion that whales are cold blooded would logically have

to be true as well. Therefore, the argument is valid.

Now, let’s address the issue that some of these arguments actually have false premises. This brings

us to the component of “soundness.” An argument is considered to be “sound” if and only if it is valid

1 Source: California State University, Northridge, http://www.csun.edu/~vcoao087/200/Validity .

Segment 2: Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning

and all of its premises are true, otherwise, it is “unsound.” Using the examples just above, we already

know that the form is valid, so the next thing to do is to ask which examples have premises that are

all true. Obviously, only number 6 qualifies because it is the only one that is completely true. There-

fore, number 6 is considered to be a “sound” argument whereas the others are considered to be

“unsound” arguments.

Just for added clarity regarding “valid” and “sound,” the two previous paragraphs state that Ex-

amples 3 – 6 above are valid, but only Example 6 is sound. Therefore, a deductive argument that is

valid is not necessarily logically sound.

Deductive arguments are somewhat limited in nature because they produce no new information;

they are limited to known facts and simply rearrange the same information. For example, if you

change the premise(s), you change the conclusion. Deductive reasoning is often used in mathematics

and for certain scientific purposes. This is why inductive reasoning is also necessary in many, if not

most, critical thinking situations. Inductive arguments have much broader application because they

are not limited to facts.

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning/arguments are also called “ampliative” reasoning/arguments. An inductive

argument is one that, if the premises are true, the conclusion

is likely to also be true.

Notice how

this differs from a deductive argument which says that the conclusion must be true if the premises

are true. It should also be noted that unlike deductive reasoning, with inductive reasoning, if you

change the premise(s), you may or may not also change the

conclusion. In some cases of inductive reasoning, if you

change a premise(s), the likely conclusion may not change.

An example of an inductive argument would be:

1. Socrates was Greek. (premise)

2. Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)

3. Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)1

In this example, both premises represent strong evidence

which, in turn, suggest that the conclusion is probable or

likely. However, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false—especially if Socrates hated fish.

So in a nutshell, inductive reasoning means arriving at a probable conclusion based on strong

evidence.

A key indication that an argument is inductive rather than deductive is if words such as probably,

likely, possibly, potentially, good reason to believe that, and reasonably are used in the argument.

Validity and soundness are not used with inductive arguments, but “cogent” is. An inductive ar-

gument is considered cogent when the premises are true and the evidence is strong. It corresponds

to the deductive word “sound.”

1 About.com. http://atheism.about.com/od/criticalthinking/a/deductivearg.htm.

Huh?
Deductive Reasoning

If the premises are true,

the conclusion is logically

guaranteed to also be

true.

Inductive Reasoning

If the premises are true, the conclusion

is likely to also be true.

Segment 2: Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning

Formal vs. Informal Reasoning

Two other terms you should be aware of are formal and informal reasoning. Formal reasoning is

simply deductive reasoning because it employs a logical “form.” Informal reasoning is simply the act

of thinking, hence, inductive reasoning. Both can be forms of critical thinking.

Inference

A word often associated with critical thinking is “inference” which means to derive a conclusion

by deductive or inductive reasoning. “Infer” is similar to “imply,” but the usage is different depending

on the perspective. “Imply” means to state something indirectly, whereas “infer” means to draw a

conclusion. As is discussed in Course G100: Personal and Professional Intercommunication Skills,

every message has a sender and a receiver. The sender “implies” and the receiver “infers.” In other

words, to imply means to put a suggestion into a message while to infer means to take a suggestion

out of a message. For example:

Wrong: Are you inferring that our consciousness survives death?

Right: Are you implying that our consciousness survives death?

Wrong: I imply from what you are saying that the mind is actually nonlocal.

Right: I infer from what you are saying that the mind is actually nonlocal.

Wrong: The writer inferred that unconditional love was, in fact, conditional.

Right: The writer implied that unconditional love was, in fact, conditional.

Wrong: The conclusion is inferred by the premises.

Right: The conclusion is implied by the premises.

Wrong: Based on the premises, we can imply a conclusion.

Right: Based on the premises, we can infer a conclusion.

We generally use the terms infer or inference in conjunction with deductive or inductive reason-

ing, but “imply” may also be fitting depending on the context.

PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT

Now that we’ve explained and explored the basic nature of critical thinking, we will apply these

skills in the next segment by reasoning on a few examples.

Please note that in the video below, “inductive” arguments are referred to as “ampliative” ar-

guments.

Segment 2 Supplemental Video: Critical Thinking Fundamentals 1

NOTE: Before proceeding to the next section, please listen to the audio above on

the Course Page for a supplemental discussion of this section. This audio is part of

the course.

1 Video Source: youtube.com/watch?v=Cum3k-Wglfw

Thomas Francis University • Course G120 • Segment 3

CRITICAL THINKING EXAMPLES

—Douglas R. Kelley, PhD, CH, CSL

Updated: September 27, 2015

Upon Completion of this Segment, You Will Know:

 Some basic processes in evaluating and analyzing problems.

 How to use deductive and inductive reasoning in solving problems.

 How to identify fallacies in arguments.

Thinking is skilled work. It is not true that we are naturally endowed with the ability
to think clearly and logically without learning how, or without practicing.

—Alfred Mander

n the first two segments, we explored several aspects of critical thinking. Now, let’s have some

fun and consider some examples that will put our critical thinking skills to the test. The exam-

ples to follow are commonly known as brainteasers. I’ve chosen several that illustrate deductive

and inductive reasoning—some even include logical fallacies to make them work. We will critique and

analyze them after you’ve had a chance to solve them.

As you use your critical thinking skills to evaluate each of the problems below, make notes as to

your initial thoughts when reading them as well as your thought processes in solving them. This is

important because you will need to refer to these notes when completing the assignments for this

segment.

Read each example and sincerely try to figure out the answers. This is the honor system; so don’t

cheat by looking at the answers in the Segment 3 Addendum or by looking them up online. Give

yourself some time to think critically about the problems posed, most of them aren’t as hard as you

might think. Use the skills you learned in the previous segments to help you. We’ll begin with some

simple ones, then progress to some more difficult examples. If you get stumped by any particular

example, set it aside for a while, perhaps even overnight. Sleep on it, as they say. Even though these

examples won’t change your life, they do illustrate the processes necessary for using critical thinking

skills in solving real-life problems.

Here we go…

Segment 3: Critical Thinking Examples

PROBLEMS, PUZZLES, AND RIDDLES FOR YOUR ANALYSIS

1. Johnny’s mother had four children. The first was April, the second was May, and the third was

June. What was the name of her fourth child?

2. You are driving a bus. Four people get on, three people get off, then eight people get on and

ten people get off, then 6 people get on and 2 more people get off. What color were the bus

driver’s eyes?

3. There was an airplane crash, every single person died, but two people survived. How is this

possible?

4. “That attorney is my brother,” testified the accountant. But the attorney testified he didn’t

have a brother. Who is lying?

5. A man and his son are driving in a car. The car crashes into a tree, killing the father and

seriously injuring his son. At the hospital, the boy needs to have surgery. Upon looking at the

boy, the surgeon says (telling the truth), “I cannot operate on him. He is my son.” How is this

possible?

6. How can you throw a ball so that it goes a short distance, comes to a total stop, reverses its

motion, and then goes the opposite way? You are not allowed to bounce it against anything,

hit it with anything, or tie it to anything.

7. A man parks his car and gets out. He heads into the bank. While in the bank he holds up 25

people and walks out with $200. While walking back to his car a police officer stops him, but

only gives him a warning. How can this situation be explained?

8. Ted and Linda were found on the living room floor, deceased. The window is open, the curtains

are billowing and the carpet is wet. However the doors were closed and locked. This was not

a murder-suicide. What happened to Ted and Linda?

Once you have solved the above problems, go to the Segment 3 Addendum on the course page

for a detailed explanation.

IMPORTANT!

DO NOT VIEW THE SEGMENT 3 ADDENDUM UNTIL YOU HAVE SOLVED ALL

THE PROBLEMS ABOVE!

(Or at least had a nervous breakdown from trying! )

Thomas Francis University • Course G120 • Segment 3 Addendum

ANALYSIS OF
CRITICAL THINKING EXAMPLES

—Douglas R. Kelley, PhD, CH, CSL

Updated: September 27, 2015

STOP!
You had to try it, didn’t you? 

DO NOT continue until you have

solved the problems in Segment 3!

If you don’t sincerely try to solve a few simple brainteasers,

how will you solve much bigger life problems?

If you have, in fact, solved all of the problems or at least

given it your very best try, then please proceed to the next

page. You be the judge.

Segment 3: Critical Thinking Examples

ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL THINKING EXAMPLES

When analyzing problems, it helps to use critical thinking skills to break the problem down into

“bite-size” chunks, so to speak. We can do this by identifying the premises, which will help us figure

out the solution (conclusion).

1. Johnny’s mother had four children. The first was April, the second was May, and the third was

June. What was the name of her fourth child?

Your first inclination may have been to start thinking of which month of the year might provide a

suitable name for the 4th child. Perhaps you toyed around with whether next month, “July,” could be

another spelling for “Julie” as April, May, and June are successive months. Maybe you wondered if

someone would actually name her child “July” just to match the succession of the months in order. I

guess anything is possible. But there is another solution.

To aid in solving this problem, let’s determine the premises and assume they are true.

1. Johnny’s mother had four children.

2. Three of her children were named April, May, and June.

3. Johnny’s mother must also be the mother of Johnny, which would make Johnny the fourth

child.

Problem

solved.

This problem is a great example to show that simply identifying the premises can lead to a con-

clusion (solution). It is also an example of deductive reasoning because if the premises are true, then

the conclusion must also be true. Everything we needed to solve this problem was contained in the

data. However, we also saw that it’s easy to miss things sometimes that are right in front of our eyes

that could solve our problems easily.

2. You are driving a bus. Four people get on, three people get off, then eight people get on and

ten people get off, then 6 people get on and 2 more people get off. What color were the bus

driver’s eyes?

Perhaps your first inclination was to start counting the number of people getting on and off the

bus in anticipation of a final question such as “How many people are left on the bus?” or similar. Let’s

establish the premises in order to solve this problem and assume they are true.

1. You are driving a bus.

2. Several groups of people are getting on and off the bus at different stops (implied).

Notice that the second premise is simplified. I could have added each group of people as a separate

premise, but saw no need to do so when I got to the final question, “What color were the bus driver’s

eyes?” This question obviously has nothing to do with the number of people getting on and off the

bus. By simplifying the premises, it becomes much easier to see the solution: You are the bus driver.

So, what color are your eyes? 

This problem also involves deductive reasoning because the premise is true which forces a neces-

sary conclusion that is also true. Additionally, this problem uses two related logical fallacies which

essentially accomplish the same purpose. First, it uses the Smokescreen Fallacy because it provides

too many irrelevant details that serve to block your attention from the real issue. Secondly, it uses

the Red Herring Fallacy to lead you off the track of considering only relevant information.

Segment 3: Critical Thinking Examples

3. There was an airplane crash, every single person died, but two people survived. How is this

possible?

Perhaps your first thought was, “this is impossible!” Let’s break it down into premises.

1. An airplane crashed.

2. Every person died.

3. Two people survived.

Take particular note of premise number 2. It would be very easy to do as I did and abbreviate the

stated premise (see the original wording above), but in so doing, we’ve lost our primary clue to solving

this puzzle, namely the word, “single.” This puzzle relies on the Amphiboly Fallacy, which you will

recall means “an error due to taking a grammatically ambiguous phrase in two different ways during

the reasoning.” The word “single” can have two different connotations in the context of this problem.

In the first connotation, “single” is a superfluous word that adds no further meaning to the sen-

tence. The sentence would read the same with or without it. In the second connotation, the word

“single” can mean, “not married,” which then solves the puzzle. Every “unmarried” or “single” per-

son died, but no married people died. Problem solved.

This example shows that sometimes minor wording can be the determining factor in finding a

solution. Words have meanings and shades of meanings. By substituting different words at different

times, we effectively change the lens through which we view the problem. Sometimes this can help

us with solutions.

Take a look at how I worded the premises above in the break down. By leaving out the word

“single,” I actually created an invalid deductive argument. Why? Because for an argument to be

“valid,” the conclusion must necessarily be true if the premises are true. In this case, the premises

are true (as I rewrote them) but the conclusion is false. By simply adding the word “single” or pref-

erably, “unmarried,” the argument becomes valid.

As a side point, we can also infer from this puzzle that all the people on the plane were single

(unmarried) except for two.

4. “That attorney is my brother,” testified the accountant. But the attorney testified he didn’t

have a brother. Who is lying?

Perhaps your first inclination was confusion over this problem due to a perceived lack of infor-

mation. Let’s break down the premises.

1. The accountant’s brother is the attorney.

2. The attorney does not have a brother.

This puzzle relies, more or less, on the Hasty Generalization Fallacy. Let’s use deductive reasoning

to solve it. We first assume that the two premises are true. If they are true, then what factual

conclusion would solve it? What assumptions on our part are preventing us from finding the logical

conclusion (solution)? If we remove our assumption that the accountant and the attorney are both

male, what does that leave us? The attorney may not have a brother, but does he have a sister? Could

his sister be the accountant? Yes, and problem is solved.

This puzzle required that we lose our assumptions (biases) to deduce that the accountant is female

and, in fact, the sister of the attorney.

Segment 3: Critical Thinking Examples

5. A man and his son are driving in a car. The car crashes into a tree, killing the father and

seriously injuring his son. At the hospital, the boy needs to have surgery. Upon looking at the

boy, the surgeon says (telling the truth), “I cannot operate on him. He is my son.” How is this

possible?

Perhaps your first thoughts were to wonder whether the boy also had a step father and whether

that step father was either the surgeon or the man who died in the crash. Let’s break down our

premises:

1. A man and his son are driving in a car.

2. They crash into a tree.

3. The father is killed.

4. The son is seriously injured.

5. The son is transported to the hospital (implied).

6. The son needs surgery.

7. The surgeon cannot operate on the boy because of him being the surgeon’s son.

We can use deductive or inductive reasoning to find the solution to this dilemma, but it’s often a

better idea to start with deductive reasoning if we have a number of presumed facts available. In

other words, before we start to speculate whether a step father could have been the surgeon or the

man who died, we should first evaluate whether we have enough information to draw a conclusion

forced by the premises, assuming they are true.

This example is similar to the previous one insofar as the Hasty Generalization Fallacy is required

to make it work. If we remove our assumption that the surgeon must be male, where does that leave

us? It leaves us with the very plausible conclusion that the surgeon was the boy’s mother. Problem

solved.

The reason that it’s preferable to go with the surgeon being the boy’s mother as opposed to being

the boy’s step-father is due to Occam’s razor which states that when there is an absence of infor-

mation, the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. It is more factually economical to conclude

that the surgeon was the boy’s mother because to conclude that the surgeon was the boy’s step

father would require that we add more data to the problem that we cannot necessarily substantiate.

6. How can you throw a ball so that it goes a short distance, comes to a total stop, reverses its

motion, and then goes the opposite way? You are not allowed to bounce it against anything, hit

it with anything, or tie it to anything.

Perhaps your first thoughts were to futilely figure out how you could throw a ball laterally and

have it come back to you. This riddle may seem quite different than the other examples we’ve dis-

cussed so far, but we can find the solution using the same methodology. Let’s break it down deduc-

tively and assume our premises are true.

1. We throw a ball a short distance.

2. The ball comes to a complete stop.

3. The ball reverses its motion and travels in the opposite direction.

4. The ball does not touch or hit anything during its travel, nor is it attached to anything.

Segment 3: Critical Thinking Examples

Assuming that all of these premises are true, what would have to happen to the ball so that we

have a conclusion (solution) that necessarily follows the premises and is also true? This is where the

analytical and evaluative aspects of critical thinking come into play. If we throw the ball straight

ahead of us, two things will happen that nullify the premises: 1) the ball will keep going because

nothing will cause it to stop in mid-air and turn around, or, 2) the ball will fall to earth because of

gravity. So, what other options are there? What if we threw the ball upwards? Problem solved.

In order to solve this problem, we had to ask open-ended questions during our analysis to develop

plausible alternatives. The next puzzle will require this same technique and more.

7. A man parks his car and gets out. He heads into the bank. While in the bank he holds up 25

people and walks out with $200. While walking back to his car a police officer stops him, but only

gives him a warning. How can this situation be explained?

Perhaps your first thought was that the police officer didn’t realize the man just robbed the bank.

This example will require more critical thinking than the other examples so far. We will start out with

deductive reasoning, but that won’t be enough. We will also have to use inductive reasoning plus a

lot of creative inference. Remember, when reasoning on problems such as this, it helps to start out

with deductive reasoning to the extent possible. In other words, what are the facts and what do the

facts tell us? When the facts do not tell us enough, we must switch to inductive reasoning and begin

creative solution-finding to discover the most likely conclusion.

So, what possible circumstances could explain this scenario? It is much the same as recreating a

crime scene. Let’s clarify what we have in a deductive manner by breaking down our premises.

1. The man parks his car.

2. He gets out.

3. He heads into the bank.

4. He holds up 25 people.

5. He walks out of the bank with $200.

6. A police officer stops him and gives him a warning.

You can see that there are gaps in our available information. So let’s reason on what we have

using inferences to help us come up with the most plausible (cogent) conclusion. We will build on the

premises stated above to do this.

1. The man parks his car and walks into the bank. Not much to infer here.

2. We are next told he holds up 25 people. This implies that he robbed either the people in

the bank and/or the bank itself.

3. He then walks out of the bank with only $200 which is our first clue in solving this problem.

This is suspicious because one would logically conclude that if someone robbed 25 people

and/or a bank, they would walk away with much more than $200.

 Conclusion 1: The man robbed the bank and/or the people in the bank.

 Pros: Perhaps something went wrong with his heist before he could get more

money thus causing him to flee the bank with only $200.

Segment 3: Critical Thinking Examples

 Cons: One would logically conclude that if something had gone wrong, there

would be commotion associated with the man’s escape such as a security

guard chasing him and people screaming out of fright. Such activity is not

reported in the original example.

4. Next, a police officer stopped the man and gave him a warning. This gives us our second

and strongest clue to solving this. We can infer from this that there was no commotion

associated with a bank robbery. We can also infer that since the police officer only gave

him a warning and one doesn’t get warnings for robbing banks, that the man did not actu-

ally rob the bank or the people inside. This rules out our Conclusion 1 above.

5. Okay, time for more questions. Since we ruled out a bank robbery, what usable information

are we left with?

1. The man parked his car.

2. The man held up 25 people.

3. The man got a warning.

6. Conclusion 2: Now we are beginning to see the solution to this issue. For what do people

often get warnings? The answer is traffic violations. Since the man “held up 25 people,”

we can infer that he got a warning for a parking violation; perhaps he double-parked thus

holding up traffic, i.e., 25 people in cars.

 Pros: It fits all the evidence we have perfectly.

 Cons: None.

7. Problem solved.

This problem relies on two logical fallacies to work, “Misrepresentation” and “False Cause.” Mis-

representation is just what the word implies; it is a form of dishonesty and lying. False Cause means

to erroneously conclude that one thing was caused by another. Both of these fallacies apply because

the problem states the man held up 25 people after stating that he headed into the bank when it

should have stated it after saying he parked his car.

8. Ted and Linda were found on the living room floor, deceased. The window is open, the curtains

are billowing and the carpet is wet. However the doors were closed and locked. This was not a

murder-suicide. What happened to Ted and Linda?

Perhaps your first thought was that the killer came in and left through the window. This example

is admittedly difficult and ambiguous because we could come up with several plausible scenarios.

However, by using critical thinking skills to analyze the problem, we can not only exercise our mental

muscles, but we can also arrive at the most likely conclusion.

As with the previous example, we will use deductive reasoning to the extent possible, then induc-

tive reasoning to reach a plausible conclusion. As always, let’s start by breaking down the problem

into its premises.

1. Ted and Linda were found dead on the living room floor.

2. The window is open.

Segment 3: Critical Thinking Examples

3. The curtains are billowing in the wind (implied).

4. The carpet is wet.

5. The doors are closed and locked.

6. This was not a murder-suicide.

Now let’s reason on the little information we have and make some inferences.

1. Ted and Linda were found dead on the living room floor.

 The implication is that Ted and Linda are the homeowners, but we do not know

this for sure. They could be guests, visiting relatives, burglars, or pets.

 We do not know who found them dead on the floor.

 We do not know how they died. The example specifically states “deceased” rather

than “murdered.” The word, “deceased,” would seem to connote something other

than murder such as natural causes. Also note that when simplifying this premise,

I used the word “dead” instead of “deceased.” This was, at first, an effort to sim-

plify and reframe the premise in an effort to reason on it. However, by doing so, I

could have potentially missed the implication of the word “deceased.” This is just

a reminder to be careful when rephrasing or reframing a premise so that you don’t

lose potential meaning.

2. The window is open.

 We don’t know when the window was opened, whether it is open all the way, or

whether there is a screen or security bars attached.

 We also don’t know whether this is a ground floor home, a 20 story high-rise, or

something in between.

3. The curtains are billowing in the wind (implied).

 The curtains are billowing most likely from the wind, but we do not know this for

sure. It could be a hot, windless day which would explain why the window was

open. There could even be an electric fan close by causing the curtains to billow.

However, Occam’s razor tells us that in the absence of data, the simplest explana-

tion is likely the correct one. So, we’ll assume the curtains are billowing in the

wind for now.

4. The carpet is wet.

 At this point, it’s anyone’s guess as to how this fits in, or if it fits in at all. We could

speculate all day long about what this means and what might account for it, which

would violate Occam’s razor. For the moment, we’ll just make a mental note of it.

5. The doors are closed and locked.

 This would imply (or, we can infer) that whoever was responsible for Ted and

Linda’s deaths either had a key to the house and locked the door as they left, or

they came in through the window instead.

Segment 3: Critical Thinking Examples

 Typically, we would probably stop here with reasoning on this specific prem-

ise, however, to do so would mean that we are assuming that Ted and Linda

are humans and that another person murdered them. We still do not know

who or what Ted and Linda are. They could be pets of some sort. So, we’ll

make a mental note of this.

6. This was not a murder-suicide.

 One thing we do know is that Ted and Linda didn’t kill themselves.

At this point, we can formulate some theories based on our reasoning as to what might have

happened.

 Conclusion 1: Ted and Linda were the homeowners. An unknown person entered through

their window, killed them, and exited through the window leaving it open in the process.

 Pros: This would explain why the door was closed and locked, why the window was

open, and why the curtains were billowing.

 Cons: It would not explain the wet carpet or why the word “deceased” was used

instead of “murder.”

 Conclusion 2: Ted and Linda were pets of the homeowners, specifically, dogs, cats, or

similar mammals. The pets were killed by someone who came in through the window or

were overcome by a natural gas leak.

 Pros: This would explain why the door was closed and locked and why the word

“deceased” was used. It would also explain why the window was open and the

curtains were billowing

 Cons: It would not explain why the carpet was wet. Additionally, one could argue

that since the window was open, a natural gas leak could not have killed the pets

especially since natural gas is lighter than air and rises thereby making the effects

of natural gas minimal near the floor where most pets are.

 Conclusion 3: Ted and Linda were pets of the homeowners, specifically, Goldfish. The

homeowners went out on errands and left the window open. The fishbowl was placed near

the window and a gust of wind came in causing the curtains to knock the fishbowl over.

 Pros: This would explain why the window was open and the curtains billowing, why

the carpet was wet, and why the door was closed and locked. We can infer that it

was a fishbowl that was knocked over because an aquarium would have been too

heavy to be knocked over by curtains.

 Cons: None.

Of course, we could have continued with possible conclusions with different scenarios, but three

were enough to make the point. Of the three possible conclusions given, it is obvious that Conclusion

3 offers the most likely explanation as to what happened. It is, in fact, the answer to this problem.

This puzzle is probably a little closer to real life when it comes to solving problems as we some-

times have very little information to use in making difficult decisions.

Segment 3: Critical Thinking Examples

LEARNING FROM THESE EXAMPLES

What did you learn from reasoning on these examples? Hopefully, you learned that by deductively

breaking down the issue into known premises and then inductively reasoning on options, you stand a

better chance of finding better solutions and making better decisions.

Did you notice how I commented on what your first impressions might have been prior to discussing

each problem? This demonstrates that we naturally bring biases and preconceived notions to problem

solving. Without thinking about it, our minds automatically start searching for possible solutions. This

is why we must deliberately strive to release any preconceived notions and beliefs before trying to

solve problems. Actually, the process that we went through to solve these problems helped us to

keep our critical thinking based on facts and not unconscious assumptions.

In the next segment, we will add to what we’ve learned in these first two segments as well as

explore specific steps in creative solution-finding.

Thomas Francis University • Course G120 • Segment 1

INTRODUCTION TO
CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS

—Douglas R. Kelley, PhD, CH, CSL

Updated: September 27, 2015

Upon Completion of this Segment, You Will Know:

 The definition of critical thinking.

 The attributes of a critical thinker.

 What critical thinking is not.

 Logical Fallacies and false arguments.

A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.
—Oscar Wilde

have made many references in previous courses to the need to remain reasonable, rational,

and grounded when considering metaphysical topics due to the diverse nature of metaphysical

beliefs. This was just another way of saying that we must use critical thinking skills as a matter

of practice and routine in life. This segment and others will explore the nature of critical thinking as

well as show how important it is in every aspect of our lives.

We use critical thinking skills, to one degree or another, every day. Common examples include

working out a weekly schedule, reviewing a bank statement for errors, evaluating a product prior to

purchase, and even reading this course material, among others. Some things require a higher level of

critical thinking such as problem solving, while others, like choosing a TV show to watch, don’t.

Reading, writing, talking, listening, and studying can all be done critically or uncritically. Awareness

of critical thinking skills is increasing in academia as well as in public school curricula.

Critical thinking skills are actually a metaphysical topic because they involve higher thinking and

consciousness. And like other metaphysical topics, critical thinking has its share of philosophers who

find much satisfaction in probing the depths of the topic until it can be probed no further.

Many definitions of critical thinking exist each with their own shade of meaning. As always, I will

strive to cut through the clouds of ambiguity to present a clear and simple explanation that can be

easily understood and applied. First, I will offer some common definitions of critical thinking, then

the ingredients of critical thinking, and finally, show you how to employ it in your life. By the way,

the “critical” in critical thinking does not refer to the negative sense of the word such as is used

when finding fault with someone. It refers to skillful judgment when evaluating issues. The words

Segment 1: Introduction to Critical Thinking Skills

“critical” and “criticism” are actually neutral words,

even though most people think of them as negative.

Critical thinking is defined as “the mental process of

actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyz-

ing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach

an answer or conclusion. (Dictonary.com, “Critical

Thinking”)”

Many, many definitions of critical thinking exist de-

pending on the person (or philosopher). Here are a few

to help you get a better idea of what critical thinking

means:

 Critical thinkers distinguish between fact and

opinion; ask questions; make detailed observa-

tions; uncover assumptions and define their

terms; and make assertions based on sound logic

and solid evidence.1

 Critical thinking is the process of evaluating

propositions or hypotheses and making judg-

ments about them on the basis of well-supported

evidence.2

 Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined

process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing,

applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evalu-

ating information, gathered or generated by ob-

servation, experience, reflection, reasoning, and/or communication as a guide to belief or

action. Critical thinking is not the simple acquisition and retention [of] information; the de-

velopment of a particular set of skills, and/or the repetitive application of those skills without

the critical evaluation of their results. Critical thinking encompasses the eight elements of

reason: purpose, point of view, question at issue, information, interpretations and inference,

concepts, assumptions, implications and consequences.3

Basically, critical thinking is the ability to ask “what are the facts and what do those facts tell

us?” responsibly with no predetermined beliefs, to open-mindedly and logically evaluate and analyze

all possibilities, to draw conclusions that are consistent with reality and based on evidence, and

finally, to egolessly reassess and amend those conclusions as necessary.

Just writing that summary required critical thinking skills, and I got to create a new word to boot

(egolessly)!

1 Ellis, D. Becoming a Master Student, 1997, http://www.alamo.edu/sac/history/keller/accditg/ssct.htm.
2 Cengage Learning, http://college.cengage.com/psychology/bernstein/psychology/6e/students/key_terms/ch02.html.
3 Paul, R. (1995). What every student needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for

Critical Thinking.
4 Ferrett, S. Peak Performance (1997), http://www.alamo.edu/sac/history/keller/accditg/ssct.htm.

ATTRIBUTES OF A CRITICAL THINKER4

 Asks pertinent questions

 Assesses statements and arguments

 Is able to admit a lack of understanding

or information

 Has a sense of curiosity

 Is interested in finding new solutions

 Is able to clearly define a set of criteria

for analyzing ideas

 Is willing to examine beliefs, assump-

tions, and opinions and weigh them

against facts

 Listens carefully to others and is able to

give feedback

 Sees that critical thinking is a lifelong

process of self-assessment

 Suspends judgment until all facts have

been gathered and considered

 Looks for evidence to support assump-

tion and beliefs

 Is able to adjust opinions when new

facts are found

 Looks for proof

 Examines problems closely

 Is able to reject information that is in-

correct or irrelevant

Segment 1: Introduction to Critical Thinking Skills

We could almost reduce the foregoing definition further by saying that critical thinking means

thinking for yourself responsibly and honestly.

WHAT CRITICAL THINKING IS NOT

Critical thinking is not passive thinking; it means thoughtfully weighing all aspects of a matter

before deciding. Unfortunately, far too many people engage in passive thinking and accept what

others say at face value. This often causes problems at some point because the passive thinker may

discover that what he or she was told is not true. This type of thing is common within religion. Many

folks have become disillusioned with religion because they discover that the beliefs they were taught

and lived their lives by were based on nothing more than somebody else’s opinion of the nature of

existence. This often leads to an existential crisis for them.

Belief is arguably one of the most potent forces in the universe. Belief has literally shaped our

lives via society, culture, religion, government, and everything in between. Belief has started and

stopped wars; it is responsible for why you are who you are, and all your successes and failures in

life. And Belief can play a huge role in our ability or inability to think critically.

Take dogmatism, for example. Dogmatic thinking generally means that one holds to specific beliefs

without proof. The dogmatic person does not suspend deep-seated beliefs as does the critical thinker.

These beliefs then filter any conclusions the dogmatic person draws. Moreover, strong emotions are

usually linked with dogmatic thinking, and no one can think clearly when he or she is emotionally

charged. We’ve heard the expression, “blinded by emotion” and this is exactly what happens with

dogmatic thinking. Critical thinking is the opposite of dogmatic thinking.

Something else that critical thinking is not is having subjective pet theories on particular topics.

By subjective pet theories, I mean theories and beliefs that lack objective and realistic evidence and

include a healthy dose of blind emotion. This mindset applies across a rather broad spectrum, most

notably, spiritual belief systems and hardcore skeptics of metaphysical and paranormal phenomena.

In Course G50: The Nature of Metaphysics, I cautioned against blindly buying into fringe meta-

physical beliefs simply because they are popular. Passive thinkers will accept without question such

concepts as “there are nine planes of existence and we are on the second level.” However, there is

not one shred of realistic and objective proof for such a belief. In fact, it is so esoteric—even eccen-

tric—that one wonders which channeled entity came up with it first. This is not to say that it isn’t

true. What I am saying is that we have nothing to indicate that such a premise is based on anything

substantive. Critical thinkers are open-minded enough to consider such a concept, but they also need

at least some firm ground to stand on if they are to put it out to the world as a viable theory.

Hardcore skeptics and debunkers are another group who have something to learn from critical

thinking. While they fancy themselves as critical thinkers, they are really nothing of the sort. They

often appear on television documentaries offering seemingly scientifically-based explanations of why

people, for example, do not really see ghosts or anomalies in the skies. The problem with these so-

called experts is that they ignore the mountains of evidence from credible sources that says some-

thing is going on. Rather than conducting honest research to discover whether that “something” is

caused by some form of supernatural or alien intelligence or whether it is purely an aspect of the

human psyche, they sweep it under the rug by disingenuously and demeaningly assigning such credible

witnesses to the ranks of nut jobs. This is not critical thinking; it is irresponsible, dishonest, and lazy.

Segment 1: Introduction to Critical Thinking Skills

Belief and disbelief are two sides of the same coin.1 You cannot be a disbeliever without also being

a believer. Hardcore skeptics and debunkers (disbelievers) are just as guilty as those who take things

on faith (true believers) for not thinking critically. Conversely, critical thinkers, while being open-

minded, ensure that what they believe is grounded in reality and reason.

Some other traits of non-critical thinkers are:2

 They see things in black and white, as either-or, rather than recognizing a variety of pos-

sible understandings.

 They see questions as yes or no with no subtleties.

 They fail to see linkages and complexities.

 They fail to recognize related elements.

 They take their facts as the only relevant ones.

 They take their own perspective as the only sensible one.

 They take their goal as the only valid one.

Critical thinking also repels false arguments, as we shall discuss in the following section.

Segment 1 Supplemental Video: Critical Thinking Skills 3

NOTE: Before proceeding to the next section, please listen to the audio above on

the Course Page for a supplemental discussion of this section. This audio is part of

the course.

LOGICAL FALLACIES / FALSE ARGUMENTS

Another form of thinking that is opposed to critical thinking is that of false arguments known as

“logical fallacies,” and there are a zillion of them (ok, that might be an exaggeration).4 Fallacies are

errors that we can make even without realizing it which then creep into our arguments thus weaken-

ing them. I will highlight some of the more common fallacies in this section.

One type of false argument is called a “False Dilemma” (also known as a “Either/Or Fallacy,” or

“Black-or-White Fallacy”) and is often used in the media. For example, the Metropolitan Community

College website5 (Kansas City, Missouri) offers this explanation:

In this fallacy, the distraction from the truth lies in the wording of the argument. The

argument is worded so that we are only given two alternative actions, one of which is

1 Cryptozoology —Science and Speculation by Chad Arment, 2004, page 29.
2 Daniel J. Kurland, 2000, What is Critical Thinking? http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htm.
3 Video Source: youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg
4 For a comprehensive list of logical fallacies, visit http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy or do an online search.
5 Metropolitan Community College, http://www.mcckc.edu/main.asp?L=FallaciesDistraction.

Segment 1: Introduction to Critical Thinking Skills

usually so outrageous as to be unacceptable. The other action or option of belief is

usually the one being argued for. This argument is deceptive because if carefully con-

structed, it has a valid form (Disjunctive Syllogism), but it ignores the possibility that

there may be more than two alternative actions. For example:

 “Either we allow abortion or we force children to be raised by parents who don’t

want them.”

 “America, love it or leave it!”

 “If Guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

 “If we restrict publication of Magazines such as the Star and the National En-

quirer, then the first Amendment will be weakened and the whole country will

be controlled by the Government.”

You can see that the above examples are inherently dishonest because options exist other than

just the two stated.

Another form of false argument is known as “circular reasoning,” also called “begging the ques-

tion” by Aristotle.1 The dictionary defines circular reasoning as “ a use of reason in which the prem-

ises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which ‘this is used to

prove that, and that is used to prove this (Dictionary.com, “circular reasoning”).’” In other words,

circular reasoning is the false argument that “A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is

true.” For example, “This guy is bad because he is evil.” The words, “bad” and “evil” mean essentially

the same thing and, therefore, one cannot be used to prove the other. A loop or circle is thus born

and is illogical. Here are some additional examples of circular reasoning or logic:2

 “Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustwor-

thy is proof of this.”

Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition — “politicians are

untrustworthy” — in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes

that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself. (Wikipedia.com,

“circular reasoning”)

 Bill: “God exists.”

Jill: “How do you know.”

Bill: “Because the Bible says so.”

Jill: “Why should I believe the Bible?”

Bill: “Because the Bible was written by God.”

 “The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God.”

 “If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law.”

1 “Begging” in this sense means to evade or dodge the issue. It is not the same expression as “this begs the question” which
simply means a question is raised. Context is important in understanding which meaning a particular writer intends. Some

anal-retentive proponents of the logical fallacy version of “begging the question” are quick to judgmentally point out their
perceived misuse of the term. However, the second usage is very common in modern times so it is therefore proper. Gee,

was that circular reasoning? 
2 Some examples were taken from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html.

Segment 1: Introduction to Critical Thinking Skills

 Interviewer: “Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference.”

Bill: “Jill can give me a good reference.”

Interviewer: “Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?”

Bill: “Oh, she’s trustworthy, I can vouch for her.”

Following are a few more logical fallacies of which you should be aware:

 Jumping to Conclusions or Hasty Generalization. This is a common mistake that bypasses

critical thinking and wrecks many a relationship. For example, “I saw my new boyfriend go

into a restaurant with another woman! I know he’s cheating on me!” Such a conclusion

bypasses the fact that the “other woman” was the boyfriend’s out-of-town sister who was

visiting him for the day. Giving the benefit of the doubt is part of critical thinking. Another

variation is Hasty Generalization that can include gender or racial bias. For example, as-

suming that certain professional people such as doctors, lawyers, and accountants are of

the male gender.

 Personal attacks (argumentum ad hominem, “argument toward the man”). Ad hominem

attacks occur when one person attacks the other person instead of addressing the argument

at hand. Some people will resort to this when they are losing a debate. Ad hominem attacks

are common in online forums where debating members remain behind a cloak of anonym-

ity. For example, “Only idiots would propose the idea you are!”

 Appeal to the People (argumentum ad populum “argument to the people”). These types

of arguments manifest as “everybody is doing it,” or “all the best people are doing it.”

This false argument implies that if many people are doing something or believe something,

then it must be true. Similarly, it can also imply that if a certain class of people is doing

something, it must be right. Of course the implication is that one would be among the “best

people” if he or she was to do the same thing.

 Appeal to Tradition (argumentum ad tradition, “argument to tradition”). Similar to the

fallacy above, this argument essentially says, “It’s true or valid because that’s the way

we’ve always done it.” Obviously, if we held to this false argument, we would never make

any progress whatsoever. As the old saying goes, “If we always do what we’ve always done,

we’ll always get what we’ve always got.”

 Appeal to Improper Authority or Biased Authority (argumentum ad verecundium, “argu-

ment from that which is improper”). This fallacy happens when the premise of an argument

relies on an authority or famous person to guarantee or prove the conclusion. An example

of an improper authority would be to cite a movie star in trying to prove quantum physics.

An example of biased authority would be, “You can believe God exists because the Pope

says it’s so.”

 Red Herring or Irrelevant Conclusion (ignorantio elenchi, “ignorance of refutation”). A

Red Herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the

real issue at hand in order to mislead the reasoner. For example, “You should be out looking

for real criminals instead of giving me a ticket for speeding.”

 Smokescreen. This fallacy simply means that one offers too many details in an effort to

cover something up.

Segment 1: Introduction to Critical Thinking Skills

 Unfalsifiability. This is a rather ambiguous term that simply means there is no way to prove

an argument true or false. For example, if someone claims to be possessed by demons,

there is no way to prove it one way or another. In science, for example, theories and

hypotheses need to be “falsifiable” in order to be valid, that is, there must exist a way to

prove them true or false such as through experiments and observation. This is a potentially

important issue in the field of metaphysics as many concepts such as survival of the con-

sciousness after death cannot yet be proven one way or another. All the evidence we have

is subjective rather than objective.

 Argument from a Negative or Lack of Evidence (argumentum ad ignorantium, “argument

from ignorance”). This false argument is similar to the Either/Or Fallacy and simply says

that since the opposition cannot disprove a claim, it must be true. For example, “UFO’s

must exist because no one has proven they don’t exist.”

 Amphiboly. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy1 defines this fallacy as “an error due

to taking a grammatically ambiguous phrase in two different ways during the reasoning.

Example: In a cartoon, two elephants are driving their car down the road in India. They

say, ‘We’d better not get out here,’ as they pass a sign saying:

ELEPHANTS

PLEASE STAY IN YOUR CAR.”

Avoid amphibolies by paying close attention to words and meanings.

Segment 1 Supplemental Videos: Logical Fallacies 1 – 3 2

NOTE: Before proceeding to the next section, please listen to the audio above on

the Course Page for a supplemental discussion of this section. This audio is part of

the course.

1 The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Amphiboly.
2 Video Sources: youtube.com/watch?v=1N3TROA8MYY, youtube.com/watch?v=Z71w-rHkeSk,

youtube.com/watch?v=nmRCpqO_1JA

Thumbnails/thumbnail

In 350 to 1,000 words (for this specific question), please answer the following in your own words:

Five or more of the most important points you learned from this cours

Please follow these instructions closely:

Number each point so that it is easy to rea

Do not simply summarize what the course taught. We already know what the course teaches. We want to know the most important points you learned from it.

Focus your answers on what the course material taught, not on previous knowledge or opinions (we can’t test for those).

Make sure you meet/exceed the minimum word count.
Use MS Word to type your answer out first to ensure you meet the minimum word requirement of at least 350 words. Then you can copy and paste your answer from Word to the box below.

This question is worth 38% of your overall score. Therefore, make it count. 🙂

Please use the following format when writing your answers (you can copy and paste the question-format below into the answer box or word processor). Then, put your cursor next to line 1 and type your answer. Then, go on to 2, et

Five or more of the most important points you learned from this course:

Answer text

Question
2

Not yet answered

Marked out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text

“Hasty Generalization,” “Black-or-white,” and “Appeal to the People” are examples of:

Select one:

Formal reasonin

Factual Dilemmas.

Logical Fallacies.

Factual Fallacies.

Clear my choice

Question
3

Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text

Assuming that the premises are true, if you change a __________, you change the _____________.

Select one:
a.

condition/solution

condition/situation

challenge/solution

premise/conclusion

Clear my choice

Question
4

Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text

Circular reasoning is also known as:

Select one:
a.

Looping reasoning.

Reasoning Hula-Hoop.

Round about question.

Begging the question.

Round about reasoning.

Clear my choice

Question
5

Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text

Critical thinking means: (Choose all that apply)

Select one or more:

Informal reasoning.

Formal reasoning.

Responsiblity.

Honesty.

Thinking for yoursel

Passive thinking.

Open-mindedness.

Dogmatic reasoning.

Question
6

Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text

Deductive reasoning deals with the “________” whereas the inductive reasoning deals with the “________ and ________ .”

Select one:
a.

what / what, why

what / where, how

what / why, how

how / what, why

Clear my choice

Question
7

Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text

Formal reasoning is ___________ whereas informal reasoning is __________.

Select one:
a.

informal, formal

inductive, deductive

deductive, inductive

cogent, valid

Clear my choice

Question
8

Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text

Please choose the correct statement:

Select one:
a.

A deductive argument is considered cogent when the premises are true and the evidence is strong.

The word “imply” is only used with inductive reasoning.

An inductive argument is considered cogent when the premises are true and the evidence is strong.

The word “inference” is only used with deductive reasoning.

Clear my choice

Question
9

Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text

The type of argument whose conclusion is
guaranteed provided its premises are true is known as:

Select one:
a.

Circular reasoning.

Deductive reasoning.

c.
Informal reasoning.
d.

Inductive reasoning.

Clear my choice

Question
10

Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text

The type of argument whose conclusion is
likely provided its premises are true is known as:

Select one:
a.
Circular reasoning.
b.
Formal reasoning.
c.
Deductive reasoning.
d.
Inductive reasoning.

Clear my choice

Question
11

Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text

The type of reasoning that is limited to known facts and simply rearranges the same information is known as:

Select one:
a.
Informal reasoning.
b.
Inductive reasoning.
c.
Deductive reasoning.
d.

Cogent reasoning.

Clear my choice

Question
12

Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text

When using critical thinking to solve a problem, we should always start with ____________ reasoning and then switch to _____________ reasoning as necessary.

Select one:
a.

valid, sound

b.
inductive, deductive
c.
informal, formal
d.
deductive, inductive

Clear my choice

Question
13

Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00

Flag question

Question text

A deductive argument that is valid must also be logically sound. (The vast majority of students get this wrong. Go back to the study material and make sure of your answer.)

Select one:

True

False