7.2 Quiz Critcal Thinking by Example


1. Ann: Our football team sucks. We have had only one winning season in forty years. The winning season was back in the sixties, and even then we only won six out of ten games. There’s nothing significantly different about our football team this season. It sounds cruel, but we should bet against our own university.

Betty: Yeah, our record is not so hot. But it is still possible that we could be national champions at the end of the year. It is not certain that we will lose like we have in the past.

Christa: You are right, Betty. It is possible that every other team will get killed by earthquakes, or lighting strikes, etc. We would win by default.

Darlene: Betty and Christa, I’m afraid you are wrong. Perhaps you weren’t listening. Ann pointed out that we have only had one winning season, and only barely, in forty years.

Evelyn: What we need is a new coach. Our arch rivals over at Peer State University hired a new coach two years ago and started winning immediately.

Francine: I have a better idea: what we need is a really, really big stadium. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but all the really successful programs have huge stadiums.

Gina: Our failures are of biblical proportions. I’m not saying a winning season is impossible. If we get divine intervention, then a winning season might happen. But we won’t be getting any divine intervention. God doesn’t like losers.

Helen: I think there is good evidence that miracles can happen even on our campus. You passed your calculus test didn’t you, Gina?

The best evaluation of Ann's argument is

a) assuming the premises are true, it is a good argument.
b) it commits the post hoc fallacy.
c) it commits the fallacy of jumping from correlation to causation.
d) it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
e) it commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
f) it commits the fallacy of hasty conclusion.
g) it commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.

2. The best evaluation of Betty's argument is

a) assuming the premises are true, it is a good argument.
b) it commits the post hoc fallacy.
c) it commits the fallacy of jumping from correlation to causation.
d) it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
e) it commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
f) it commits the fallacy of hasty conclusion.
g) it commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.

3. The best evaluation of Christa's argument is

a) assuming the premises are true, it is a good argument.
b) it commits the post hoc fallacy.
c) it commits the fallacy of jumping from correlation to causation.
d) it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
e) it commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
f) it commits the fallacy of hasty conclusion.
g) it commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.

4. The best evaluation of Darlene's argument is

a) assuming the premises are true, it is a good argument.
b) it commits the post hoc fallacy.
c) it commits the fallacy of jumping from correlation to causation.
d) it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
e) it commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
f) it commits the fallacy of hasty conclusion.
g) it commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.

5. The best evaluation of Evelyn's argument is

a) assuming the premises are true, it is a good argument.
b) it commits the post hoc fallacy.
c) it commits the fallacy of jumping from correlation to causation.
d) it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
e) it commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
f) it commits the fallacy of hasty conclusion.
g) it commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.

6. The best evaluation of Francine's argument is

a) assuming the premises are true, it is a good argument.
b) it commits the post hoc fallacy.
c) it commits the fallacy of jumping from correlation to causation.
d) it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
e) it commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
f) it commits the fallacy of hasty conclusion.
g) it commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.

7. The best evaluation of Gina's argument is

a) assuming the premises are true, it is a good argument.
b) it commits the post hoc fallacy.
c) it commits the fallacy of jumping from correlation to causation.
d) it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
e) it commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
f) it commits the fallacy of hasty conclusion.
g) it commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.

8. The best evaluation of Helen's argument is

a) assuming the premises are true, it is a good argument.
b) it commits the post hoc fallacy.
c) it commits the fallacy of jumping from correlation to causation.
d) it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
e) it commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
f) it commits the fallacy of hasty conclusion.
g) it commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.

9. Ann makes an inductive argument.

a) True
b) False
10. Betty makes an inductive argument

a) True
b) False
This is more feedback!
This is the feedback!



Back to Top