Question 1

If all people would learn the skills of analyzing arguments, then there would be no more disagreements.

Accepted Answer

Learning the skills of analyzing arguments can improve understanding and communication, but it does not eliminate disagreements because people can have fundamentally different values, beliefs, and interests.

Question 2

If you can think of any reasons why a conclusion is false, then you should decide that the conclusion is false.

Accepted Answer

The ability to think of reasons why a conclusion might be false does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false; it indicates critical thinking and consideration of alternative perspectives or counterarguments. A conclusion should be evaluated based on the strength and validity of the evidence supporting it, not solely on the ability to conceive of reasons it might be false.

Question 3

When you add weak support to a conclusion, you strengthen the quality of the argument.

Accepted Answer

True

Question 4

Sometimes, one strong reason that supports a conclusion, is "good enough" to believe in the conclusion.

Accepted Answer

A single, strong, and well-supported reason can be sufficient to believe in a conclusion if it effectively addresses the question at hand and outweighs any counterarguments.

Question 5

Rationalizing is a good way to judge the quality of an argument.

Accepted Answer

Rationalizing often involves justifying decisions or actions after the fact with logical reasons, even if those reasons were not the actual motivators. This can lead to biased or flawed reasoning rather than objectively judging the quality of an argument based on evidence and logic.

Question 6

Propaganda is almost always based on false reasons.

Accepted Answer

Propaganda can be based on true, false, or exaggerated information, and its primary aim is to influence public opinion or behavior rather than to inform with complete accuracy.

Question 7

With a little care, it should be easy to tell the differences among facts, opinions, and reasoned judgments.

Accepted Answer

The answer of With a little care, it should be...

Question 8

In visual arguments, the verbal portion is more persuasive than the more subtle visual elements.

Accepted Answer

Visual elements can be highly persuasive in visual arguments, often conveying messages and emotions more effectively and immediately than verbal components. They engage viewers on a sensory level, making the argument more memorable and impactful.

Question 9

Fallacies can be identified by checking the rules for sound arguments and deciding if any have been violated.

Accepted Answer

Fallacies are errors in reasoning that violate the principles of logic, and they can be identified by examining whether an argument adheres to the rules for forming sound and valid arguments.

Question 10

The rules for changing beliefs can be used to check your own arguments for persuasiveness.

Accepted Answer

The rules for changing beliefs can help in evaluating the persuasiveness of arguments by ensuring they are logical, evidence-based, and appeal effectively to the audience's values and beliefs.

Question 11

A/An __________ consists of one or more statements that are used to provide support for a conclusion
A) premise
B) argument
C) hypothesis
D) reason
E) None of the above

Accepted Answer

An argument consists of one or more statements (premises) that are used to provide support for a conclusion. This is a fundamental aspect of logic and critical thinking.

Question 12

A premise is __________ when several premises are presented and they do not contradict each other.
A) consistent
B) presumptive
C) convergent
D) acceptable

Accepted Answer

A premise is considered consistent when multiple premises are presented in an argument and they do not contradict each other, ensuring logical coherence.

Question 13

Which of the following is NOT important when evaluating credibility of internet sources?
A) What are the author's qualifications?
B) Is the site a public service or a sales pitch?
C) Is the information complete?
D) Is the information on the site still relevant?
E) All of the above are important when evaluating credibility of internet sources

Accepted Answer

All the options listed (A through D) are important factors to consider when evaluating the credibility of internet sources. The author's qualifications can indicate expertise, the purpose of the site (informational vs. sales) can influence content bias, completeness of information ensures thorough understanding, and relevance determines if the information is up-to-date and applicable to current contexts.

Question 14

Adequate grounds is when
A) the author of an argument is credible.
B) an argument makes very few assumptions.
C) the premises are strong enough to support a conclusion.
D) an argument contains no counterarguments.
E) All of the above comprise adequate grounds

Accepted Answer

Adequate grounds refer to the strength and relevance of the premises in supporting the conclusion of an argument, which is accurately described in option C.

Question 15

The sons of former U.S. presidents are more likely than the average man to become President, and the offspring of television and movie actors are more likely than the average person to become famous. These events are likely to occur because the average person reasons using
A) social desirability.
B) virtue by association.
C) halo effects.
D) appeals to snobbery.
E) None of the above

Accepted Answer

The answer of The sons of former U.S. presidents are...

Question 16

If I told you that "80% of all people abducted by space aliens are supporting themselves as criminals," I am guilty of
A) using contradictory premises.
B) knowing the unknowable.
C) creating a false dichotomy.
D) covariation ignorance.
E) None of the above

Accepted Answer

The statement implies knowledge of an unknowable fact, as there is no verifiable way to know the occupations of people abducted by space aliens, assuming such abductions occur.

Question 17

The use of statements like "Brand X is best" is an example of a/an
A) false dichotomy.
B) inappropriate analogy.
C) guilt by association.
D) incomplete comparison.
E) None of the above

Accepted Answer

The statement "Brand X is best" is an example of an incomplete comparison because it does not specify what Brand X is best in comparison to, leaving the comparison vague and undefined.

Question 18

"We need to raise the speed limit because the current legal speed is too slow." This statement is an example of
A) card stacking.
B) part-whole fallacies.
C) slippery slope.
D) circular reasoning.

Accepted Answer

This statement is an example of circular reasoning because it essentially says that the speed limit needs to be raised because it is too slow, which is just restating the premise as the conclusion without providing a real argument or evidence for why the speed limit is too slow or should be raised.

Question 19

Presenting a very weak form of an opposing argument is one component of
A) testimonials.
B) creating false cause.
C) appeals to tradition.
D) a straw person.
E) None of the above

Accepted Answer

Presenting a very weak form of an opposing argument is a characteristic of a straw person argument. This tactic involves misrepresenting or oversimplifying someone else's position in order to easily refute it, rather than engaging with the actual argument presented.

Question 20

Premises that consist of the idea that certain events lie along a continuum, and affecting one event affects all events, are involved in
A) part-whole fallacies.
B) circular reasoning.
C) slippery slope.
D) a straw person.
E) None of the above

Accepted Answer

The slippery slope argument is based on the premise that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect, suggesting that changing one event on a continuum affects all subsequent events.

Quiz 5: Analyzing Arguments

If all people would learn the skills of analyzing arguments, then there would be no more disagreements.

If you can think of any reasons why a conclusion is false, then you should decide that the conclusion is false.

When you add weak support to a conclusion, you strengthen the quality of the argument.

Sometimes, one strong reason that supports a conclusion, is "good enough" to believe in the conclusion.

Rationalizing is a good way to judge the quality of an argument.

Propaganda is almost always based on false reasons.

With a little care, it should be easy to tell the differences among facts, opinions, and reasoned judgments.

In visual arguments, the verbal portion is more persuasive than the more subtle visual elements.

Fallacies can be identified by checking the rules for sound arguments and deciding if any have been violated.

The rules for changing beliefs can be used to check your own arguments for persuasiveness.

A/An __________ consists of one or more statements that are used to provide support for a conclusion

A premise is __________ when several premises are presented and they do not contradict each other.

Which of the following is NOT important when evaluating credibility of internet sources?

Adequate grounds is when

The sons of former U.S. presidents are more likely than the average man to become President, and the offspring of television and movie actors are more likely than the average person to become famous. These events are likely to occur because the average person reasons using

If I told you that "80% of all people abducted by space aliens are supporting themselves as criminals," I am guilty of

The use of statements like "Brand X is best" is an example of a/an

"We need to raise the speed limit because the current legal speed is too slow." This statement is an example of

Presenting a very weak form of an opposing argument is one component of

Premises that consist of the idea that certain events lie along a continuum, and affecting one event affects all events, are involved in