Practical Reasoning Test 1 Study

(1) Cognitive processing, heuristics and biases; (2) Argument identification; and (3) Deductive and inductive arguments

System 1 Processing

fast, automatic, and intuitive, operating with little to no effort. This mode of thinking allows us to make quick decisions and judgments based on patterns and experiences.

System 2 Processing

slow, deliberate, and conscious, requiring intentional effort. This type of thinking is used for complex problem-solving and analytical tasks where more thought and consideration are necessary.

Cognitive Illusion

An involuntary error in our thinking or memory due to System 1, which continues to seem correct even if we consciously realize it's not.

Heuristic

A cognitive shortcut used to bypass the more effortful type of reasoning that would be required to arrive at an accurate answer. They are susceptible to systematic and predictable errors.

Availability Heuristic

Our tendency to use information that comes to mind quickly and easily when making decisions about the future. Particularly, it refers to judging something’s frequency or probability by asking how easily we can think of examples. [Examples: Revenue of companies; Causes of human death.]

Primacy Effect

The tendency to remember the first piece of information we encounter better than information presented later on. This creates a tendency to give early information more evidential weight than late information. [Example: Courtroom study.]

Belief Perseverance

The tendency to continue to hold onto established beliefs even when faced with clear evidence to the contrary. [Example: Suicide notes study.]

Confirmation Bias

The tendency to notice or focus on potential evidence for our pre-existing views, and to neglect or discount contrary evidence.

Soldier (Defense) Mindset

About making some ideas win and other ideas lose.

Scout (Discovery) Mindset

About being genuinely curious as to what beliefs we should have (curious about what the truth of the matter is). This is a mindset where one is trying to get an accurate picture of reality, even when that’s unpleasant or inconvenient.

Statement

A unit of language (typically a sentence) that can have a truth value (true/false).

Argument

A connected series of statements, one or more of which are designed to provide support for another statement.

Premise

Within an argument, a statement presented as evidence, a reason in support of another statement (the conclusion of the argument).

Conclusion

Within an argument, the statement supported by the premise(s).

Canonical Form of an Argument

Has each premise numbered and written on a separate line. The conclusion is written on the final line. Indicator words and other unnecessary material should be removed from the premises and conclusion.

Nonarguments

Fragments containing statements with no relation of support (inferential relationship).

Simple Noninferential Passages

Simple passages with no claim that anything is being proved (including Warnings, Pieces of Advice, Statements of Belief or Opinion, Loosely Associated Statements, Reports).

Expository Passages

These begin with a topic sentence followed by one or more sentences that develop the topic sentence

Illustration

An expression involving one or more examples, intended to show what

something means or how it is done.

Explanation

An expression that purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon. The event or phenomenon in question is usually accepted as a matter of fact.

Explanandum

The statement that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained

Explanans

The statement or group of statements that purports to do the explaining.

Conditional Statements

Statements of the form “if… then…” These statements are composed of two component statements.

Antecedent

The component statement immediately following the “if”

Consequent

The component statement following the “then”

Deductive Argument

An argument in which the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises with strict necessity, i.e., given the premises, it is claimed that we must draw the conclusion. Other than checking if this type of inferential link is intended, we can usually determine that an argument is this form by looking at its general form.

Deductive Argument Examples

Based on mathematics, From definition, Some standard syllogisms—categorical, hypothetical, disjunctive

Arguments based on Mathematics

The arguer draws a conclusion by doing some purely arithmetic or geometric computation or measurement

Arguments from definition

Reaching the conclusion of the argument depends merely on the definition of a word used in the argument.

Syllogism

Arguments with two premises and a conclusion

Categorical Syllogism

Each statement begins with the word “All,” “No,” or “Some.”

Hypothetical Syllogism

Containing at least one premise which is a conditional (if…then…) statement.

Disjunctive Syllogism

One of the premises is an either/or statement.

Inductive Argument

An argument in which the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises with probability, i.e., given the premises, it is claimed that the conclusion is probable.

Inductive Argument Examples

Predictions, Causal inference, Arguments from authority, Arguments based on signs, Generalizations, Arguments from analogy

Prediction

An argument that uses information about the past to make a claim about what will happen in the future.

Casual Inference

An argument that proceeds from knowledge of a cause and makes a claim about a subsequent effect or proceeds from knowledge of an effect and makes a claim about a previous cause.

Argument from Authority

The arguer claims that something must be the case because a presumed expert or a witness has said so

Arguments Based on Signs

The arguer claims that some conclusion follows simply because of something stated on a sign.

Generalization

An argument that proceeds from knowledge of specific cases to a general claim about an entire group, or all members of a certain class of things.

Argument from Analogy

The arguer compares things and draws a conclusion based on the similarities between those things. It claims that since two things are analogous, and one of them has a certain characteristic, the other probably has it too.

Paradigmatic Example of System 1

Judge one object as more distant than another

Paradigmatic Example of System 1

Orient to the source of a noise

Paradigmatic Example of System 1

Make a disgust face in response to smell

Paradigmatic Example of System 1

Stereotype someone

Paradigmatic Example of System 2

Brace for the starter gun in a race

Paradigmatic Example of System 2

Search memory to identify an author, if it’s not automatic

Paradigmatic Example of System 2

File your taxes

Paradigmatic Example of System 2

Compare two prices for cost and value