If a claim conflicts with other claims we have good reason to accept

If a claim conflicts with other claims we have good reason to accept, we
have good grounds for doubting it.
If a claim conflicts with our background information, we have good reason
to doubt it.
Other things being equal, the more background information a claim conflicts
with, the more ….doubt it.
We fall into a fallacious appeal to authority when we think that just because
someone is an expert in one field, he or she is necessarily an expert in another.
When experts disagree about a claim, we have good reason to double it.
Experts are more likely to be right because they have access to more
information on the subject…...they are better at judging the information than we
are.
The probability of randomly drawing the jack of spades out of a standard deck
of 52 cards is 1/52.
The two most revealing indicators of an expert’s reliability are reputation
among peers and professional accomplishment.
It is reasonable to accept the evidence provided by personal experience only if
there is no good reason to doubt it.
When we rely on evidence not because it is trustworthy but because it is
memorable or striking, we are guilty of the availability error.
Research shows that our perception and memory are constructive.
The error of thing that previous events can affect the probabilities in the random
event at hand is known as the gambler’s fallacy.
When we seek out and use only evidence that confirms our views, we are guilty
of confirmation bias.
If a news report conflicts with other reports that you believe are reliable or with
facts you already know, you …doubt the report’s reliability.
Words that water down a claim just enough to sure that it is technically true but
superficially misleading weasel words.
What we perceive and remember is to some degree fabricated by our minds.
[TRUE]
Fallacies are often beguiling because they are psychologically persuasive yet
logically inadequate.
The fallacy sometimes referred to as arguing in a circle is the fallacy of begging
the question.
Automatically rejecting a claim just because it is part of a tradition is not
reasonable.
A hasty generalization is a fallacy of unacceptable premises.
The distorting, weakening, or oversimplifying of someone’s position so it can be
more easily attacked is the fallacy of straw man.
Arguing that because a line or distinction cannot be draw at any point in a
process, there are no differences or gradations in that process is known as the
decision-point fallacy.
An unwarranted conclusion about an entire group of people is known as a
stereotype.
The drawing of a conclusion about a target group based on an inadequate
sample size is known as hasty generalization.
The argument---“No one has shown that ghosts aren’t real, so they must be
real” ---is an example of appeal to ignorance.
The use of non-argumentative, emotive words and phrases to persuade or
influence an audience is known as rhetoric.
The genetic fallacy is arguing that a claim is true or false solely because of its
origin.
The fallacy of arguing that what is true of parts must be true of the whole is
called composition.
The use of derision, sarcasm, laughter, or mockery to disparage a person or idea
is known as ridicule.
The class argument ---“The Bible says that God exists. The Bible is true because
God wrote it. Therefore, God exists” ---is an example of begging the question.
The argument ---“Either you support the war or you are a traitor to your
country. You don’t support the war. So you’re a traitor” --- is an example of
false dilemma.
Slippery slope is a fallacy of unacceptable premises.
The rhetorical tactic that seeks to influence through an emotion-charged skewed
definition is known as rhetorical definition.
An argument of this form ---P. Therefore, p --- is called begging the question.
The fallacy of equivocation occurs whenever a word has one meaning in one
premise and another meaning in another premise or the conclusion. [TRUE]
Claims that come out a “poisoned well” cannot be automatically dismissed.
[TRUE]
The demand that someone prove a universal negative is unreasonable. [TRUE]
The demand that someone prove a universal negative is unreasonable. [TRUE]
Any argument that tries to show that one event or state of affairs can inevitably
lead to others is fallacious. [FALSE]
In most cases a claim should be considered true if it hasn’t shown to be false.
[FALSE]
Any argument that tries to show that one event or state of affairs can inevitably
lead to others is fallacious. [FALSE]
Claims are guilty by association. [FALSE]
In most cases a claim should be considered true if it hasn’t been shown to be
false. [FALSE]
Politicians rarely use the straw-man fallacy. [FALSE]
Whether people are hypocritical regarding their claims is directly related to the
truth of those claims. [FALSE]
Critical thinking is the use of rhetoric to influence or persuade an audience.
[FALSE]
Claims should be regarded as true if they are believed by many people. [FALSE]
The truth-table test of validity is based on the fact that it is impossible for a valid
argument to have true premises and a false conclusion.
The following is an accurate truth table for a conditional. [TRUE]
p
T
T
F
F
q
T
F
T
F
p->q
T
F
T
T
The following is an accurate truth table for a conjunction. [TRUE]
p
T
T
F
F
q
T
F
T
F
p&q
T
F
F
F
Here is an inaccurate truth table for the following argument. [FALSE]
P ->q.
So p-> (p & q)
p
T
T
F
F
q
T
F
T
F
p&q
T
F
F
F
p->q
T
F
T
T
p-> (p & q)
T
F
T
T
The following is an accurate truth table for a negation. [FALSE]
p
T
T
F
F
q
T
F
T
F
p->q
T
F
T
T
Here is an accurate truth table for the following argument: [TRUE]
A&b
~a
So b