Module 3: Ch. 6 & 7 Critical Thinking

An argument is a logical reasoning where reasons are provided to support a conclusion, different from a problem, observation, or theory.

Reasons are statements that provide justification or support for a conclusion, making it more probable. Arguments are the overall structure that includes reasons. Claims are statements that assert something without providing justification. Evidence is the information or data used to support reasons.

In this context, a conclusion is a statement that is drawn based on the evidence or reasons presented. It is the final assertion or prediction made.

When evaluating an argument, it is important to focus on the validity and strength of the reasons provided, as well as how well they support the conclusion. The number of people agreeing with the argument, the length of the argument, or the visual aspects like color or formatting do not directly impact the quality of the argument.

A valid argument is one in which the conclusion logically follows from the reasons provided, making it a sound and reasonable argument. Fallacious arguments are invalid and based on faulty reasoning, circular arguments simply restate the conclusion without providing new information, and inductive arguments draw a conclusion based on probabilities rather than certainty.

An invalid argument is one where the reasons provided do not logically lead to the conclusion. This means the conclusion cannot be considered valid based on the reasons given.

A deductive argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the given premises. Inductive arguments involve reasoning from specific observations to general patterns. Abductive arguments involve forming the best explanation for a set of observed facts. Fallacy arguments contain errors in reasoning.

The question is referring to a deductive argument where the conclusion logically follows from the premises provided.

The correct answer is 'Application of a General Rule' because when two premises are presented to support a conclusion based on a general rule, it is considered an application of a general rule. Circular Reasoning is when the premise is the same as the conclusion, Appeal to Emotion is using emotions to support a conclusion, and False Dilemma is presenting only two options when more exist.

Modus Ponens is a valid form of reasoning where the antecedent of a conditional statement is affirmed, leading to the affirmation of the consequent. Modus Tollens, Hypothetical Syllogism, and Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent are other logical principles that do not directly relate to affirming the antecedent.

Denying the consequence, also known as Modus Tollens, is a valid form of argument that asserts the antecedent of a conditional statement to conclude the denial of the consequent. Ad Hominem, Straw Man, and Appeal to Authority are different fallacies that involve attacking the person making the argument, misrepresenting the opponent's position, or relying on an authority figure's opinion respectively.

Disjunctive Syllogism is a form of logical reasoning where a disjunction is true but one of the disjuncts is false. The incorrect answers do not involve presenting several alternatives in the same way as disjunctive syllogism.

Inductive reasoning involves drawing a general conclusion from specific instances, without necessarily guaranteeing the truth of the conclusion. Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, guarantees the conclusion if the premises are true. Abductive reasoning involves forming a plausible explanation for an observed result, and analogical reasoning draws connections between similar situations to make an inference.

Fallacies are faulty reasoning that may seem convincing but are actually flawed. They often manipulate emotions and preconceptions to appear logical.

Empirical generalization involves drawing conclusions about an entire group based on observations of some members, unlike deductive reasoning which involves specific premises to reach a specific conclusion. Hasty generalization involves making a general statement without enough evidence, and anecdotal evidence relies on personal experiences rather than a systematic observation.

The three criteria for evaluating inductive arguments are specifically related to the sample used in the argument, not the conclusion, counterarguments, or anecdotal evidence.

The three Fallacies of False Generalization are Hasty Generalization, Sweeping Generalization, and False Dilemma. Circular Reasoning, Red Herring, and Ad Hominem are different fallacies not specifically related to false generalization.

Causal reasoning involves establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between events, unlike deductive reasoning which focuses on broader generalizations, analogical reasoning which relies on similarities between different cases, or abductive reasoning which seeks the simplest and most likely explanation.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a set of observations or facts. It is used as a basis for further investigation and experimentation to test its validity. The other options provided do not specifically refer to a possible explanation introduced for further investigation.

Fallacies of Relevance are arguments that distract from the main issue and appeal to irrelevant factors. Logical Fallacies, Circular Reasoning, and Red Herring are incorrect because they do not specifically refer to irrelevant factors in arguments.