To view this notification widget you need to have JavaScript enabled. This notification widget was easily created with NotifySnack.
  Loading... Please wait...

(TCO 1) "Thinking about thinking" is the definition of what? (Points : 4)

Price:
$22.99


Product Description

 

Question 1.1. (TCO 1) "Thinking about thinking" is the definition of what? (Points : 4)

       Development of arguments
       Measure of good sense
       Development of critical skills
       Writing for clarity
       Critical thinking

 

Question 2.2. (TCO 1, 2, 4) In Chapter 1, we learned the definition of the term issue. The principle concern when handling an issue is whether or not (Points : 4)

       a given claim is true or not.
       a claim attaches to the conclusion or not.
       the majority has a position on the debate.
       key experts have a position on the debate.

 

Question 3.3. (TCOs 1, 2, 3) In Chapter 1, we learned the definition of the term argument. The purpose of an argument is to (Points : 4)

       explain complex ideas.
       win adherents to a position.
       refute the positions of other people.
       support or prove conclusions. 
 

 

Question 4.4. (TCOs 2, 3) In Chapter 2, we learned the meaning of inductive arguments. The support that the premises provide for the conclusion of an inductive argument is best described in terms of (Points : 4)

       valid or invalid.
       sound or unsound.
       provable or unprovable.
       strong or weak.

 

Question 5.5. (TCO 1, 2) In Chapter 2, we learned the meaning of the three modes of persuasion, as defined by Aristotle. Logos
refers to arguments based on (Points : 4)

       ethics and moral character.
       experiment and observations.
       passions and emotions.
       logic and reasoning.
 

 

Question 6.6. (TCO 6) In Chapter 2, we learned how to analyze arguments. The first step in trying to understand arguments is to find the(Points : 4)

       nonargumentative materials attached to it .
       elements of confusion.
       conclusion or thesis of the passage.
       intentions of the author.

 

Question 7.7. (TCOs 6, 7, 8, 9) In Chapter 3, we learned about the key elements of an argumentative essay. An author of a good argumentative essay should do all of the following, EXCEPT (Points : 4)

       discredit the integrity of the opponents.
       rebut the arguments that support contrary positions.
       state his/her position on the issue.
e. provide arguments that support his/her position on the issue.

 

Question 8.8. (TCOs 6, 8, 9) In Chapter 3, we learned the meaning of ambiguity and the difference between semantic and syntactic ambiguous claims. Consider the following example:
“Students at DeVry enroll in thousands of courses every semester.”
 In this statement, the ambiguity used is (Points : 4)

       syntactic; confusion caused by misplaced modifiers.
       syntactic; confusion caused by improper punctuation.
       semantic; confusion caused by the meaning of semester.
       semantic; confusion caused by groups with individuals in the group.

 

Question 9.9. (TCOs 2, 6, 7, 8) In Chapter 4, we learned how to assess the credibility of claims. A disinterested party who makes a claim is one who (Points : 4)

       has no stake in our believing one way or another.
       brings weaker information to the discussion.
       lacks expertise in the content of given claims.
       brings irrelevant considerations to discussion.

 

Question 10.10. (TCOs 1, 6, 7, 9) In Chapter 5, we learned that it is important to recognize when a rhetorical slanting device is being used to influence our attitudes and beliefs. The purpose of the rhetorical device called a dysphemism is to replace a term with a(n) _____ meaning with one that has a(n) _____ meaning. (Points : 4)

       inappropriate; appropriate
       vague; precise
       ambiguous; clearer
       positive or neutral; negative

 

Question 11.11. (TCOs 1, 7) In Chapter 5, we learned that it is important to recognize when a rhetorical slanting device is being used to influence our attitudes and beliefs. The purpose of the rhetorical device called a proof surrogate is to suggest a claim’s truth based on (Points : 4)

       common knowledge.
       biased opinion.
       promise of evidence without providing any support.
       promise to nurture a claim following through on the promise.

 

Question 12.12. (TCOs 1, 2) In Chapter 6, we learned that it is important to recognize when a fallacy of relevance is being used to influence our attitudes and beliefs. A personal ad hominem
fallacy is an attack on (Points : 4)

       arguments.
       facts.
       opinions.
       the character of the person making the argument.
 

 

Question 13.13. (TCOs 6, 7, 8) In Chapter 6, we learned that which party is responsible for the burden of proof depends upon a number of factors. All things being equal, the burden of proof falls automatically on the party taking the (Points : 4)

       affirmative side of the issue.
       negative side of the issue.
       position neither for or against.
       both sides of the issue.

 

Question 14.14. (TCOs 1, 2) In Chapter 11, we learned how to evaluate arguments from analogy. The best way to demonstrate the weakness of an argument form analogy is to show that the analogues are (Points : 4)

       more similar than stated or implied.
       less similar than stated or implied.
       found in the premises but not in the conclusion.
       found in the conclusion but not in the premises.
 

 

Question 15.15.  (TCOs 3, 4) In Chapter 9, we learned the basics of categorical logic. Each standard-form of categorical logic has its own graphic illustration known by what name? (Points : 4)

       Overlapping regions
       Block of exclusion
       Johari window
       Venn diagram 

 

Question 16.16. (TCOs 3, 4, 8, 9) In Chapter 9, we learned the basics of Categorical Logic. Two claims can be equivalent, if and only if, under the same circumstances (Points : 4)

       Both would be true
       Both would be false
       One would be true and the other false
       Their truth values would have no relationship

 

Question 17.17. (TCOs 2, 3, 4) In Chapter 9, we learned that the square of opposition is a graphic illustration of the relationship between the four standard-form categorical claims. In the square of opposition, the sub contrary claims are those where (Points : 4)

       both of the claims cannot be true.
       both of the claims cannot be false.
       the two claims have the opposite truth value.
       the two claims have unrelated truth values.

 

Question 18.18. (TCOs 2, 3, 4) In Chapter 9, we learned the basics of categorical logic, including three categorical relations: conversion, contraposition, and obversion. Contraposition involves replacing the standard terms with _____ terms. (Points : 4)

       positive
       negative
       contrary
       complementary

 

Question 19.19. (TCOs 2, 5) In Chapter 11, we learned how to evaluate inductive generalizations based on samples. The purpose of studying samples is to generalize from (Points : 4)

       one sample to another in the sample population.
       one sample to another in a different population.
       all samples in and out of the population.
       a sample to the whole population from which the sample is taken.

 

Question 20.20. (TCOs 2, 5) In Chapter 11, we learned how to evaluate inductive generalizations based on samples. The range of variation from one sample to another is known as (Points : 4)

       sample deviance.
       sample difference.
       variation margin.
       error margin.

 

Question 21.21. (TCOs 1, 5, 8, 9) In Chapter 7, we learned how to recognize fallacies of induction. The fallacy of hasty generalization results from a sample that is not _____ to represent the population. (Points : 4)

       properly selected
       large enough
       gathered with enough patience
       gathered with a specific purpose in mind

 

Question 22.22. (TCOs 1, 2, 3) In Chapter 11, we learned about the meaning and function of three principles of causal hypotheses. The common variable principle states a variable related to multiple occurrences may be (Points : 4)

       excluded as a possible causal explanation.
       considered as part of a group of possible explanations.
       included as the causal explanation.
       considered a possible effect of another causal explanation.

 

Question 23.23. (TCOs 2, 6) In Chapter 12, we learned the difference between religious relativism and religious absolutism. The guiding principle of religious relativism is the theory that what is right and wrong is based on the beliefs of (Points : 4)

       the particular religious affiliations of your culture.
       the one and only correct religion, regardless of your culture.
       those who have studied the sacred texts of their religion.
       those who have critically evaluated the beliefs of their religion.

 

Question 24.24. (TCOs 2, 6) In Chapter 12, we learned the difference between moral relativism and moral absolutism. According to moral relativism, the idea of right or wrong is based on (Points : 4)

       objective moral principles.
       individual preferences.
       the beliefs of one's group or culture.
       whatever promotes our own self-interests.

 

Question 25.25. (TCOs 1, 6) In Chapter 12, we learned about the consistency principle, which states in part that, “If separate cases are not different in any relevant way, then they should be treated (Points : 4)

       different in all cases.”
       different in most cases.”
       the same in most cases.”
       the same in all cases.”

Products by Category

Add to Wish List

Click the button below to add the (TCO 1) "Thinking about thinking" is the definition of what? (Points : 4) to your wish list.

You Recently Viewed...