Critical_Thinking_and_Problem_Solving_Th

Index abductive reasoning, 264 balance of probability, 24 ABE (argument to the best explanation), 264 ‘begging the question’ flaws, 188–9 ad hominem arguments, 184 ad ignorantiam arguments, 201 Carroll diagrams, 236–7 ad populum arguments, 133 causal explanations, 25, 137–42 algebraic methods, 232–3 cause-correction fallacy, 76 alternative explanations, 139–40 certainties, 24 analogy, 174–5, 265–7 charity, principle of, 52, 201 analysis, 177–81 checking answers, 246–7 anecdotal evidence, 71–2 choices, 123–4, 279–80 animal intelligence, 2 circular reasoning, 189 anomalies, 140–1 circumstantial evidence, 145 answers claims, 16, 31, 58, 61 checking, 246–7 conditional (hypothetical), 25, 251 intermediate, 93 to fact, 17 antecedents, 251 judging, 21–6 approximation, 246 particular, 26, 71 argument indicators, 28 sources, 150 arguments, 8, 28–32 strong and weak, 25–6, 72 from analogy, 174–5, 265–7 classic fallacies, 75 analysis, 38–42 clauses, 24–5 to the best explanation, 264 combinations, 233 complex, 43–8, 52–4, 170–5 complex arguments, 43–8, 52–4 conclusions, 50–6 complex claims, 24–5 counter-arguments, 47–8, 177–81 conclusions, 50–6, 58–9 ethical, 187–8, 291–4 diffuse, 54–5 flawed, 70, 73–4 implicit, 60–1, 126 further argument, 191–4 intermediate, 43 identification, 33–7 jumping to, 75, 139 reported, 46–7 multiple, 52–4 soundness and validity, 254–61 and reasons, 28 argumentum ad hominem, 184 conditional claims, 25, 251 argumentum ad ignorantiam, 201 conditional statements, 250–1 argumentum ad populum, 133 conditions, 249–52 assertions, 16, 63 connectives, 24–5 assumptions, 63–8, 183–4 consequences, 279–82 attitude, 8–9 consequentialism, 292 audience, 8 consequents, 251 authors, 8 context, 196–7  Index 345

control groups, 274 photographic, 161 correlation, 76, 166 statistical, 269–77 corroborative evidence, 145–6, 153, 163 exhaustive searches, 98–9 counter-arguments, 47–8, 177–81 expertise, 151 counter-examples, 192 explanations, 25, 137–42 creative thinking, 2 explicit assumptions, 63 credibility, 150–3 eyewitness accounts, 145, 151–2 critical evaluation, 183–90 Critical Thinking (academic discipline), 7–8 facts, and opinions, 16–17 cynicism, 9 fairness, arguments from, 188 fallacies, 70–7 data, 86–8 false cause, 76 analysis, 225–7 flawed reasoning, 70, 73–4, 184 processing, 90–2 flow diagrams, 249–50 raw, 144, 269–70 further argument, 191–4 scientific, 163 selectivity, 270–4 generalisations, 26, 71 genre, 196–7 decision trees, 242–4, 283–5 graphical information, 86, 87, 102–4 decision making, 123–4, 279–85 graphical methods of solution, 235–7 declarative sentences, 16 deductive reasoning, 256–7, 260 heuristic methods, 82 deep-rooted assumptions, 67–8 hidden premises, 64–5 definition, claims by, 24 ‘higher order’ skills, 1 degree, differences of, 289–91 hypotheses, 18–19, 106–9, 168 deontology, 292–3 hypothetical claims, 25, 251 diagrammatic information, 86, 88 differences of degree, 289–91 imaginative thinking, 2 differences of kind, 289–91 imperative sentences, 16 diffuse conclusions, 54–5 implicit assumptions, 63, 65–6 dilemmas, 309–10 implicit conclusions, 60–1, 126 direct evidence, 145 inadmissible evidence, 151 directed searches, 98–9 independent thinking, 9 distracters, 53 indirect evidence, 145 documents, 7 induction, 263 inference, 38, 74–5, 106–9, 126–35, 225–7 elimination of incorrect answers, 247 inference indicators, 28 embedded arguments, 46–7 insufficient reason, 72–3 ethical arguments, 187–8, 291–4 interdependent premises, 39 Euler diagrams, 256–7 intermediate answers, 93 evaluation, 22, 183–90 intermediate conclusions, 43 evidence, 144–8 interrogative sentences, 16 investigations, 220–3 anecdotal, 71–2 circumstantial, 145 jumping to conclusions, 75, 139 corroborative, 145–6, 153, 163 justified claims, 21–3 ‘hearsay’, 11, 145 inadmissible, 151 346 Index

Kant, Immanuel, 293 principle of charity, 52, 201 kind, differences of, 289–91 principles, 287–94 knowledge, 24 probability, 17–18, 24, 240–4, 280 Köhler, Wolfgang, 2 ‘putting the answer back’, 246 logic, 254–61 qualification of judgements, 24 logical forms, 252 quantitative data, 106–9 lowest common multiples (LCMs), 233 questions, rhetorical, 19 mapping, of arguments, 180 raw data, 144, 269–70 mathematical models, 119–21, 211–18 reason, insufficient, 72–3 methods of solution, 93–6 reason indicators, 28 mistaken cause, 76 reasoning, 2 mixed arguments, 41–2 models, 119–21, 211–18 circular, 189 multiple conclusions, 52–4 deductive, 256–7, 260 flawed, 70, 73–4, 184 necessary and sufficient conditions, 249–52 non-deductive, 262–8 necessity, 116–17 spatial, 112–14 neutrality, and credibility, 152 with statistics, 269–77 non sequitur, 59, 60 suppositional, 157, 251 non-deductive reasoning, 262–8 reasons, 58–61, 106–9 and conclusions, 28 objective claims, 17 insufficient, 72–3 observations, scientific, 163 recommendations, 19 open mindedness, 9 reflection, 2 opinion, popular, 131–3 relevance, 59–60 opinions, facts and, 16–17 reported arguments, 46–7 reputation, 151 particular claims, 26, 71 ‘restricting the options’, 173 pattern recognition, 102–4 rhetoric, 186 peer review, 164 rhetorical questions, 19 percentages, 231–2 permutations, 233 safe inferences, 126, 128 photographic evidence, 161 scepticism, 9 pictorial information, 86, 88 science, critical thinking in, 126–8, 163–9 plausibility, 138–9, 141, 150 searching, 98–100 popular opinion, 131, 131–3 selective searches, 99 post hoc fallacies, 75–6 selectivity of data, 270–4 pragmatics, 291 ‘slippery slope’ flaws, 188–9, 290–1 predictions, 17–18 ‘smoking gun’ evidence, 145–6 pre-emptive moves, 178 solution, methods of, 93–6 premise indicators, 28 sorites paradox, 291 premises, 29, 58–61 sound arguments, 70, 254–61 sources of claims, 150 hidden, 64–5 spatial reasoning, 112–14 interdependent, 39 standards, for judging claims, 23–4 missing, 66–7 statements, 16  Index 347

conditional, 250–1 truth, 21, 22 by witnesses, 145, 151–2 tu quoque fallacy, 268 statistical evidence, 269–77 two-dimensional reasoning, 112–14 ‘straw man’ flaws, 38, 188–9 strong claims, 25–6, 72 unjustified claims, 22 sub-arguments, 43 unsafe inferences, 126, 128 subjective claims, 17 unsound arguments, 70, 254 sufficiency, 116–17 utilitarianism, 292 sufficient conditions, 249–52 suggestions, 19 valid arguments, 254–61 suppositional reasoning, 157, 251 value, 280 synthesis, 301, 309–10 value judgements, 17 Venn diagrams, 95, 236–7 tabular information, 86–7, 102–4 verbal information, 87, 102–4 testimony, 145 vested interests, 152 texts, 7, 196–7 thinking, creative, 2 warranted claims, 21–3 three-dimensional reasoning, 112–14 weak claims, 25–6, 72 tree diagrams, 241, 283 witness statements, 145, 151–2 trust, 21 348 Index