Thinking Skills Assessment (TSA) Critical Thinking (Section 1) Flashcards

24 sample cards from the Critical Thinking (Section 1) deck

Sampled from the end of the deck, so these are different cards from the ones shown on the syllabus page.

1. What is the 'ad hominem' fallacy?

   Attacking the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself, treating the speaker's character or circumstances as grounds to reject their claim.

2. What is a 'straw man' fallacy?

   Misrepresenting or oversimplifying an opponent's position into a weaker version, then refuting that distorted version instead of the actual argument.

3. What is the 'false dilemma' (false dichotomy) fallacy?

   Presenting only two options as if they were the only possibilities when other alternatives exist, forcing a choice between them.

4. What is 'begging the question' (circular reasoning)?

   Assuming the truth of the conclusion within the premises, so the argument's reasons presuppose what they are meant to prove.

5. What is the 'slippery slope' fallacy?

   Claiming that one step will inevitably lead to a chain of negative consequences without providing evidence that each step actually follows from the previous one.

6. What is an 'appeal to authority' fallacy?

   Accepting a claim as true merely because an authority asserts it, especially when the authority is not a genuine expert on the matter or experts disagree.

7. What is an 'appeal to popularity' (bandwagon) fallacy?

   Arguing that a claim is true or right simply because many people believe it or do it.

8. What is the core error of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'?

   Concluding that because event B followed event A, A must have caused B—mistaking temporal sequence (correlation in time) for causation.

9. Why is 'correlation does not imply causation' central to causal reasoning?

   Two variables moving together may be linked by coincidence, reverse causation, or a common third (confounding) factor, so correlation alone cannot establish that one causes the other.

10. What is 'reverse causation' as a causal reasoning error?

    Mistaking the direction of cause and effect: concluding A causes B when in fact B causes A (e.g., assuming illness causes a behaviour when the behaviour is a response to illness).

11. What is a 'confounding variable' (third-cause) error?

    Overlooking a hidden third factor that independently causes both correlated variables, so the apparent link between them is not direct causation.

12. What is the 'hasty generalisation' fallacy?

    Drawing a broad general conclusion from a sample that is too small, biased, or unrepresentative to justify it.

13. What is an 'unrepresentative sample' error?

    Generalising from a sample that does not reflect the wider population (e.g., self-selected or skewed), so the conclusion about the whole group is unwarranted.

14. What is the fallacy of 'composition'?

    Wrongly inferring that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole (e.g., each player is excellent, so the team must be excellent).

15. What is the fallacy of 'division'?

    Wrongly inferring that what is true of the whole must be true of each part (e.g., the company is wealthy, so every employee must be wealthy).

16. What is 'equivocation', a confusion-of-concepts error?

    Using a single word or phrase in two different senses within an argument, so the conclusion only appears to follow because of the shift in meaning.

17. What is the difference between 'necessary' and 'sufficient' conditions?

    A necessary condition must hold for an outcome (without it, not the outcome). A sufficient condition guarantees the outcome (if it holds, the outcome holds). Confusing them is a common reasoning error.

18. What does it mean to 'strengthen' an argument?

    To add information that makes the conclusion more likely to follow from the reasons—e.g., supporting a key assumption, ruling out an alternative explanation, or providing confirming evidence.

19. Give two general ways to strengthen a causal argument.

    Rule out alternative causes/confounders, and show the effect appears when the cause is present and disappears when it is absent (or cite a controlled study confirming the link).

20. What does it mean to 'weaken' an argument?

    To add information that makes the conclusion less likely to follow—e.g., attacking an assumption, offering a plausible alternative explanation, or providing a counterexample or contrary evidence.

21. Give two general ways to weaken a causal argument.

    Present a plausible alternative cause or confounder, or show the correlation breaks down (the effect occurs without the cause, or the cause occurs without the effect), or that causation runs in reverse.

22. What does a 'principle' or 'rule application' question test?

    Whether a stated general principle correctly applies to a specific case: you match the facts of the scenario against the conditions of the rule to judge whether the rule's outcome holds.

23. What is 'parallel reasoning' in a TSA question?

    Identifying the option whose logical structure (pattern of premises and conclusion) matches that of the original argument, regardless of subject matter or topic.

24. What is the method for answering a parallel reasoning question?

    Abstract the original argument into its logical form (e.g., 'All A are B; x is A; so x is B' or its flaw), then find the option sharing the same structure and, where relevant, the same flaw—ignoring surface content.

What this deck covers

Critical Thinking (Section 1) flashcards FAQ