REVISION AND SAMPLE END-COURSE TEST ON CRITICAL THINKING

(The explanation for the answers is just suggested, not prescriped)

1. Decide whether this is argument or not? Why (not)?

1) If it rains, then the picnic will be canceled. Conditional statement
2) I believe that it is not dying that people are afraid of. Something else,
unsupported something more unsettling and more tragic than dying frightens us. We are
assumption afraid of never having lived, of coming to the end of our days with the sense that
we were never really alive, that we never figured out what life was for.
3) Titanic sank because it struck an iceberg. explanation
4) Sweeping changes occurred in demographics, economics, culture, and society
during the last quarter of the 20th century. [...] Rapid technological change
fueled the growth of globalized industries, restructuring the labor force to fit a
“postindustrial” economy. report
5) Many wildflowers are edible. For example, daisies and day lilies are delicious
in salads. illustration
6) Most Cubans are hot-tempered. Sandro is Cuban. It is reasonable to conclude
that Sandro is hot-tempered. argument
Put the tick  in the appropriate cell.
No Argument Unsupported Report Conditional Illustration Explanation
assumtion
1
2
3
4
5
6

No Why this is (not) an argument

1
 2

You may use the information given below about reports, illustrations, unsupported
assumptions, explanations, conditional sentences to explain your choice.
 Reports
- Convey information about a subject, a series of events, narrate and inform, not to
offer reasons
• Conditional statements
- They are not arguments.
- They can be parts of arguments.
 Illustrations
- Provide examples of a claim, rather than prove or support the claim
- Their purpose is not to provide convincing evidence for a conclusion
 Explanations
- Try to show why something is the case, not to prove that it is the case.
- You can argue about whether a given explanation is or is not correct.
Capital punishment should be abolished because innocent people may be mistakenly
executed. (Argument: to provide convincing evidence for the abolishment of capital
punishment)
• Unsupported statements
 Statements which can be true or false about what a speaker or writer happens to
believe, but they are parts of arguments only if the speaker or writer
claims that they follow from, or support, other claims.

4 basic tests to distinguish arguments from explanations

The Common-Knowledge Test
To prove or to explain?
The North won the American Civil War because it had a larger population and a greater
industrial base. (Explanation: Common knowledge) This is an explanation rather than an
argument b/c this is a well-known
The Past-Event Test
fact/common knowledge that doesnt need
To prove or to explain a past event? proving.

Mel flunked out because he never went to class. (explain why past events have occurred)
The Author’s Intent Test
To prove or to establish that sth is the case
Kevin is majoring in political science because he wants to go to law school.
(the speaker is offering an explanation; not enough evidence as premise for a conclusion to
follow)
The Principle of Charity Test
- always interpret unclear passages generously
- never interpret a passage as a bad argument when the evidence reasonably permits us
to interpret it as not an argument at all
E.g. Jeremy won’t come to the frat party tonight because he has an important
exam tomorrow.
(The claim about Jeremy is not common knowledge, not past event, and it is unclear
speaker’s intent. Therefore, The Principle of Charity Test should be applied: it can be
either a weak argument or an apparently satisfactory explanation. The latter is
prefered for The Principle of Charity: satisfactory > weak).

2. Provide example of hypothetical syllogisms

 Modus ponens

 Chain argument

 Modus tollens (denying the consequent)

  Denying the antecedent

 Affirming the consequent

3. Provide your own example of Categorical Syllogism

• Argument by elimination
• Argument Based on Mathematics
• Argument from Definition

4. Is each of the following deductive argument valid or not? Explain why.

The diagram and summary of Deductive and Inductive argument may help
you
(The diagrams below are just used for illustration, not prescriped)

1)

 All squares are circles.

 All circles are triangles.
 Therefore, all squares are triangles.
(VALID: CHAIN ARGUMENT)
2)

 All fruits are vegetables.

 Spinach is a fruit.
 Therefore, spinach is a vegetable.
(VALID: SPINACH  FRUIT  VEGETABLES)
VEGETABLE

FRUIT

SPINACH

3)
ANIMALS

 All dogs are animals.

 Lassie is an animal.
 Therefore, Lassie is a dog.
(INVALID: lassie can be a cat or something else DOGS
that belongs to the set of animals)
Inclusion Rule: A  B, + B  A (wrong) LASSIE

4)

 All pears are vegetables.

 All fruits are vegetables.
 Therefore, all pears are fruits.
(Similar to 3)
5)

 If I’m a monkey’s uncle, then I’m a primate.

  I’m not a monkey’s uncle.
 So, I’m not a primate.
(INVALID: I can be something else that belongs to primates)
Inclusion Rule: A  B, - A  - B (wrong)

PRIMATE

MONKEY’S
UNCLE
X

5. Rewrite the invalid deductive argments in question 4 to make it valid.

3)

 All dogs are animals.

 Lassie is a dog.
 Lassie is an animal.
(VALID: LASSIE  DOGS  ANIMALS)
ANIMALS

DOGS

LASSIE

Inclusion Rule: A  B, + A  B (correct)

4)

 All pears are vegetables.

 All vegetables are fruits.
 Therefore, all pears are fruits.
(VALID: PEARS  VEGETABLES  FRUITS)
5)

 If I’m a monkey’s uncle, then I’m a primate.

 I’m not a a primate.
 So, I’m not monkey’s uncle.
(VALID: If you are not a primate, you cannot be anything that belongs to
primates)

Inclusion Rule: A  B, - B  - A (correct)

PRIMATES NOT
PRIMATES

NOT
MONKEY’S
MONKEY’S
UNCLE
UNCLE

Test of deductive validity

If the argument’s premises were true, would the conclusion also have to be true?

I.e. If you accept the premises, you cannot escape the acceptance of the conclusion

E.g.

 The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.

 Paris is in France.
 Therefore, the Eiffel Tower is in France.
(VALID: conclusion follows logically from premises)

 All pigs are sheep.

 All sheep are goats.
 Therefore, all pigs are goats.
(VALID: conclusion follows logically from premises)

Inclusion Rule: A  B, B  C, A  C
6. Is the following argument good/sound? Why not?

1)

 All heavenly bodies are made of green cheese.

 The moon is a heavenly body.
 Therefore, the moon is made of green cheese.
(VALID BUT UNSOUND: Premise 1 is false; Conclusion is false)

2)

 The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.

 Paris is in France.
 Therefore, the Eiffel Tower is in France.
(SOUND: Argument is valid, and premise is true)

7. Is the following argument strong? Why (not)?

1)

 Most college students own MP3 players.

 Andy is a college student.
 So, Andy probably owns an MP3 player.
(STRONG: PREMISE: TRUE & CONCLUSION: PROBABLY TRUE)
2)

 All previous popes have been men.

 Therefore, probably the next pope will be a woman.
(WEAK: conclusion does not follow probably from the premises)
3)

 Fifty-five percent of students at East Laredo State University are Hispanic.

 Li Fang Wang, owner of Wang’s Chinese Restaurant, is a student at East Laredo
State University.
 Therefore, Li Fang Wang is probably Hispanic.
(WEAK: Although premise is true, it is unlikely that Li Fang Wang is Hispanic because
the premise provides little support for its conclusion).
 8. Analyze the following argument using the specification in the cells below.
Put the tick  in the appropriate cell.

1)

 According to the National Weather Service, there is a 40 percent chance of rain

today.
 Therefore, probably it will be sunny today.
(WEAK: the premise provides little support for its conclusion).

2)

• Eighty-three percent of St. Stephen’s students are Episcopalian.

 Beatrice is a St. Stephen’s student.
 So, Beatrice is probably Episcopalian.
(STRONG: the premise provides greater support for its conclusion).

3)

 Either Joe walked to the library or he drove.

 But Joe didn’t drive to the library.
 Therefore, Joe jogged to the library.
(INVALID: conclusion does not follow from premise; no relevance between
premise and conclusion)
4)
Câu này ra sai nên removed nhé !
• Tom is a rabbit.
• It follows that Tom is a rodent.
(VALID/SOUND: There is a missing premise (A rabbit is a rodent))

No Deductive Inductive Sound Unsound Strong Weak Valid Invalid Cogent Uncogent
1   
2   
3   
4   

9. Is the following argument strong or weak?

Rewrite this argument so that it becomes more convincing.

 Most U.S. presidents have been over fifty years old.

 Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will be single.
(WEAK: conclusion does not follow probably from the premise)

 Most U.S. presidents have been over fifty years old.

 Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will be over fifty years old.

Why the following inductive argument is a bad one although it is strong?

 All previous U.S. presidents have worn togas.

 Therefore, probably the next U.S. president will wear a toga.

(STRONG: premise (100%) & conclusion follows probably from the premises; BAD:
premise is false)

FALLCAIES DUE TO RELEVANCE

10. What kind of falacy is commited in the following arguments?

1)

Maria’s husband has argument against wife’s role in his family. But he is unable to have
a baby, never does housework and doesn’t have to worry about living expenses.
Therefore, his argument is wortless.

Personal attack (ad hominem):

Attacking maria’s character (unability to have a baby, no worry about living expenses,
rather than his or her argument or claim.

2)

Professor Michaelson has argued in favor of academic tenure. But why should we even
listen to Professor Michaelson? As a tenured professor, of course he supports tenure.

Attacking the motive:

Criticizing the professor’s motivation of earning favor from academic tennure for
offering a particular argument or claim, rather than examining the worth of the
argument or claim itself.

3)

 Doctor: You should quit smoking.

 Patient: Look who’s talking! I’ll quit when you do, Dr. Smokestack!

Look who’s talking (tu quoque):

Rejecting the doctor’s argument or claim because of the assumtion that he is a hypocrite
who fails to give up smoking.

4)

I don’t feel guilty about cheating on Dr. Boyer’s test. Half the class cheats on his tests.

Two wrongs make a right:

Attempting to justify the student’s wrongful act (cheating) by claiming that some other
act (cheating) is just as bad or worse.

5)

Gun lobbyist to politician:

This gun-control bill is wrong for America, and any politician who supports it will
discover how wrong they were at the next election.
Scare tactics: Attempting to scare the politicians into believing the bad consequence of
the approval of gun-control bill, rather than presenting relevant evidence or reasons for
good and bad of this bill.

6)

Parent to high school football coach:

I admit my son Billy can’t run, pass, kick, catch, block, or tackle, but he deserves to
make the football team. If he doesn’t make the team, he’s going to be an emotional
wreck, and he may even drop out of school.

Appeal to pity:
Attempting to evoke feelings of pity or compassion when such feelings of maternity love
are not relevant to the arguer’s conclusion in begging an admission for her son to play in
the football team.

7)

All the really cool kids at East Jefferson High School smoke cigarettes. Therefore, you
should, too.

Bandwagon argument:
Appealing to the sudent’s desire to be popular or part of the “in crowd,” (smoking
ciagarettes) rather than to relevant reasons or evidence about the benefits of this
popular practice.
A popular belief / a true belief?

8)

Pete has argued that the New York Yankees are a better baseball team than the Atlanta
Braves. But the Braves aren’t a bad team. They have a great pitching staff, and they
consistently finish at or near the top of their division. Obviously, Pete doesn’t know what
he’s talking about.

Straw man:
Distorting or misrepresenting Pete’s position/claim “the New York Yankees are a better
baseball team than the Atlanta Braves” as “the Braves are a bad team” in order to make
it easier to attack.

9)
Many people criticize Thomas Jefferson for being an owner of slaves. But Jefferson was
one of our greatest presidents, and his Declaration of Independence is one of the most
eloquent pleas for freedom and democracy ever written. Clearly, these criticisms are
unwarranted.

Red herring:
Trying to sidetrack an audience by raising an irrelevant issue and then claiming that the
original issue “being an owner of slaves” has been effectively settled by the irrelevant
diversion “one of US greatest presidents, the writer of Declaration of Independence”.

10)

It is a crime to smoke grass. Kentucky bluegrass is a grass. Therefore, it is a crime to

smoke Kentucky bluegrass.

Equivocation:
Using a key word “grass” in an argument in two (or more) different senses 1)
marijuanna & 2) plant covering the ground in yards.

11)

Bungee-jumping is dangerous because it’s unsafe.

Begging the question:

The arguer just states or assumes the explanation of the sense of “dangerous” with a
synonym “unsafe” as a premise the very thing he is attempting to prove as a conclusion
“Bungee-jumping is dangerous”. In fact, the arguer does not prove or provide a
satisfactory premise at all but simply restates the conclusion in slightly different words.

FALLCAIES DUE TO INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

1)

My barber told me that Einstein’s general theory of relativity is a lot of hogwash. I guess
Einstein wasn’t as smart as everybody thinks he was.

Inappropriate appeal to authority:

Citing an inappropriate authority (the arguer’s barber) that is untrustworthy for the
discussion of general theory of gravity. In fact, the barber is not an authority on the
subject at issue.

2)
Mrs. Cox has testified that her son Willie was home with her at the time when Willie is
alleged to have shot Steve Wilson. Even though Willie’s fingerprints were found on the
murder weapon and six witnesses have identified Willie as the assailant, I can’t believe
that a good woman like Mrs. Cox would lie to protect her son. I think Willy is innocent.

Inappropriate appeal to authority:

Citing a witness (the suspect/defendent’s mother) that is untrustworthy for the witness’s
claim of her son’s alibi due to the bias of the source/motive (maternal love).

3)

Jerry [who was listening to heavy metal music on his iPod] claims he heard the victim
whisper his name from more than 100 feet away. Jerry has always struck me as a
straight shooter. So, I have to believe that Jerry really did hear the victim whisper his
name.

Inappropriate appeal to authority:

Citing an authority (Jerry a straight shooter) that is untrustworthy for the claim due to
the inaccuracy of measurement (distance and noise).

4)

Weekly World News, a once-popular supermarket tabloid.

Scientists’ Research Reveals . . . It Takes 3 Million Years for a Human Soul

to Reach Heaven . . . And No One from Earth Has Arrived There Yet!

Inappropriate appeal to authority:

Citing an authority (Weekly World News, a once-popular supermarket tabloid) that is
untrustworthy for the claim due to the source known to be generally unreliable

5)

It states in the Constitution that there must be a “wall of separation” between church
and state. Publicly funded school vouchers clearly violate this wall of separation.
Therefore, publicly funded school vouchers are unconstitutional.

Inappropriate appeal to authority:

Citing an authority “Constitution” that is untrustworthy for the claim “wall of

separation” between church and state” due to the source cited incorrectly.
6)

Dr. Duane Gish, a biochemist with a Ph.D. from Berkeley and former senior vice
president of the Institute for Creation Research, has argued that there is no credible
evidence supporting the theory of evolution. In view of Dr. Gish’s expertise on this
subject, we should conclude that evolution is a myth.

Inappropriate appeal to authority:

Citing an authority “Dr. Duane Gish” that is untrustworthy for the claim of lacking of
evidence for “theory of evolution” due to source’s claim conflict with expert
opinion.

7)

Dr. Stanford P. Higginbotham, a leading social philosopher, has argued that capital
punishment is always morally wrong. Given Dr. Higginbotham’s impressive credentials,
we should conclude that capital punishment is always morally wrong.

Inappropriate appeal to authority:

Citing an authority “Dr. Stanford P. Higginbotham” that is untrustworthy for the claim
of moral value of capital punishment due to the source’s claim is not the one that
can be settled.

8)

Old Doc Perkins says he has an eighty-year-old friend who can run a 100-yard dash in
less than ten seconds. Old Doc is one of the most trusted members of this community.
So, if Old Doc says he has an eighty-year-old friend who can run a 100-yard dash in less
than ten seconds, I, for one, believe him.

Inappropriate appeal to authority:

Citing an authority “Dr. Stanford P. Higginbotham” that is untrustworthy for the claim
of an 80-year old man’s 100-yeard dash running is highly improbable on its face.
9)

There must be intelligent life on other planets. No one has proven that there isn’t.

There isn’t any intelligent life on other planets. No one has proven that there is.

Appeal to ignorance:
Claiming that intelligent life on other planets is true because no one has proven it
false, or vice versa.

10)

Either we elect a Republican as president, or crime rates will skyrocket. Obviously, we

don’t want crime rates to skyrocket. Therefore, we should elect a Republican as
president.

False alternatives:

Posing a false either /or choice “crime rates will skyrocket” to force the voters to
the other choice “electing a Republican as president.

11)

Joe: Have you stopped cheating on exams?

Pete: No!
Joe: Oh, so you admit that you still cheat on exams?
Pete: No, I meant to say yes!
Joe: Oh, so you admit that you used to cheat on exams?
Pete: No!
Loaded question:
Posing a question that contains an unfair or unwarranted presupposition
(cheating in exams). A simple answer Yes or No cannot get rid of this unstated
proposition which is trickily presupposed in the argument.

12)

How do I know that ginseng tea is a cure for the common cold? Last week I had a bad
case of the sniffles. I drank a cup of ginseng tea, and the next morning my sniffles were
gone.

Questionable cause:
Claiming, without sufficient evidence, that drinking ginseng tea is the cause of
the cure for the common cold.
13)

On Monday I stayed up all night partying, had eggs for breakfast, and failed my calculus
test. On Wednesday I stayed up all night partying, had eggs for breakfast, and failed my
biology test. On Thursday I stayed up all night partying, had eggs for breakfast, and
failed my history test. Obviously, to do better on tests, I must stop eating eggs for
breakfast.

The mere correlation fallacy:

An arguer assumes, without sufficient evidence, that because A “staying up all night and
eating egss” and failing tests” regularly occur together, A must be the cause of B or vice
versa.

14)

Violent crime has declined steadily in recent years. Obviously, tougher imprisonment
policies are working.

The oversimplified cause fallacy:

An arguer assumes, without adequate evidence, that A “tougher imprisonment

policies” is the sole cause of B “steady decline of violent crime” when, in fact, there
are several causes of B.

15)

Small-business owner:

I’ve hired three San Pedrans in the past six months, and all three were lazy and
shiftless. I guess most San Pedrans are lazy and shiftless.

Hasty generalization:
Drawing a general conclusion about San Pedrans’s laziness from a sample that
is biased or too small (3 San Pedrans).

16)

Senator Walker has argued that we should outlaw terrorist threats on the Internet. This
proposal is dangerous and must be strongly resisted. If we allow the government to
outlaw terrorist threats on the Internet, next it will want to ban “hate speech” and other
allegedly “harmful” speech on the Internet. Next the government will want to censor
“harmful” ideas on television, radio, and in newspapers. Eventually, everything you see,
hear, or read will be totally controlled by the government.

Slippery slope:
Claiming, without sufficient evidence, that a seemingly harmless action
“outlawing terrorist threats on the Internet”, if taken, will lead to a disastrous
outcome “the government’s total control of everything you see, hear, or read”.

17)

Lettuce is leafy and green and tastes great with a veggie burger. Poison ivy is also leafy
and green. Therefore, poison ivy probably tastes great with a veggie burger, too.

Weak analogy:
Comparing lettuce and poison ivy that aren’t really comparable – (in)edibility of
these two kinds of plants.

18)

Moral absolutist:

I can’t believe that members of the Mabunga tribe still practice child sacrifice. If
anything is absolutely and universally wrong, it’s child sacrifice.

Moral relativist:

Hey, get with the times, man! All value judgments are relative. And that’s the absolute
truth.

Inconsistency:
Asserting inconsistent or contradictory claims right in the same argument: relative
truth vs. absolute truth of the claim about the unacceptance of child sacrifice.

ANALYZING ARGUMENTS

11. Write an argument to illustrate each of the diagram with flowchart that
indicates relationships of argumentative support

1)

  


2)

 


3)

  

4) 

12. Draw the diagrams that indicates relationships of argumentative

support.

 (Note that this is a case of Mixed Patterns of Linked & Independent Premises

1) Most Democrats are liberals, and Senator Dumdiddle is a Democrat. Thus, Senator
Dumdiddle is probably a liberal. Therefore, Senator Dumdiddle probably supports
affirmative action in higher education, because most liberals support affirmative action
in higher education.
2)

Cheating is wrong for several reasons. First, it will ultimately lower your self-respect
because you can never be proud of anything you got by cheating. Second, cheating is a
lie because it deceives other people into thinking you know more than you do. Third,
cheating violates the teacher’s trust that you will do your own work. Fourth, cheating is
unfair to all the people who aren’t cheating. Finally, if you cheat in school now, you’ll
find it easier to cheat in other situations later in life—perhaps even in your closest
personal relationships.

3)

If Amy runs marathons, she’s probably very fit. Amy does run marathons. She’s also a B
student. So, Amy probably is very fit.

(Note that this argument contains an irrelevant premise)

13. Find the missing premise/conclusion for the arguments below.

1) Store clerk:
I’m sorry, I can’t sell you any beer; you’re under twenty-one.
 Implied premise: (I can’t sell any beer to anyone under twenty-one)
Premise 1 (missing): (I can’t sell any beer to anyone under twenty-one)
Premise 2: you’re under twenty-one
Conclusion: I can’t sell you any beer
Advertisement:
The bigger the burger, the better the burger. Burgers are bigger at Burger King.
 Implied conclusion: (Burgers are better at Burger King)
Premise 1: The bigger the burger, the better the burger.
Premise 2: Burgers are bigger at Burger King.
Conclusion (implied): (Burgers are better at Burger King)