NAME

Question types


Start with


Question limit

of 49 available terms

Print test

49 Multiple choice questions

  1. The reasoning process expressed by an argument (pg. 5). Dr. Anacker's definition: "movement of reasoning from evidence to conclusion"; mental concept/event
  2. The component of a conditional statement immediately following the word "if" (pg. 22-23).
  3. The component of an explanation that explains the event or phenomenon indicated by the explanandum (pg. 20-21). Dr. Anacker's definition: "account of why the explanandum is true."
  4. A syllogism in which all three statements are categorical propositions (pg. 36).
  5. An inductive argument that is weak, has one or more false premises, fails to meet the total evidence requirement, or any combination of these (pg. 52-53).
  6. An inductive argument that proceeds from knowledge of some event in the relative past to a claim about some other event in the relative future (pg. 37).
  7. An argument that purports to prove something by giving one or more examples (pg. 20).
  8. An expression that purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon (pg. 20-21). Dr. Anacker's definition: "target statement is known to be True. What is not certain is why it is true. An explanation provides an account (Explanans) for the truth of target statements; richer piece of reasoning than arguments in a deep account."
  9. An arrangement of words and letters such that the uniform substitution of terms or statement in place of the letters results in an argument (pg. 59).
  10. A deductive argument in which the conclusion depends on some purely arithmetic or geometric computation or measurement (pg. 35-36).
  11. A deductive argument in which it is possible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true (pg. 45-47).
  12. A statement that makes a claim about all the members of a class (pg. 39).
  13. The statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply (pg.2).
  14. The statements that set forth the reasons or evidence (pg. 2).
  15. An inductive argument in which it is improbable that the conclusion be false given that the premises are true (pg. 48-53).
  16. An inductive argument that proceeds from knowledge of a cause to a claim about an effect, or from knowledge of an effect to a claim about a cause (pg. 8).
  17. The component of a conditional statement immediately following the word "then"; the component of a conditional statement that is not the antecedent (pg. 22-23).
  18. A proposition/statement that makes a claim about one or more (but not all) members of a class (pg. 39).
  19. The condition represented by the antecedent in a conditional statement (pg. 24).
  20. A method for proving invalidity; consists in constructing a substitution instance having true premises and false conclusion (pg. 61).
  21. A sentence that is either true or false--in other words, typically a declarative sentence or a sentence component that could stand as a declarative sentence (pg. 2).
  22. An "if...then" statement (pg. 22-24).
  23. An argument incorporating the claim that it is improbable that the conclusion is false given that the premises are true (pg. 33-34).
  24. An argument in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true (pg. 45-48).
  25. An inductive argument in which the conclusion rests on a statement made by some presumed authority or witness (pg. 37).
  26. An inductive argument that is strong, has all true premises, and meets the total evidence requirement (pg. 52-53).
  27. An inductive argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim about the whole group (pg. 37-38).
  28. An argument or statement that has the same form as a given argument form or statement form; of an argument form (pg. 59).
  29. An inductive argument in which the conclusion does not follow probably from the premises even though it is claimed to do so (pg. 48-53).
  30. A kind of discourse that begins with a topic sentence followed by one or more sentences that develop the topic sentence (pg. 18-19).
  31. A syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its premises (pg. 36).
  32. Words that provide clues to identifying a conclusion: therefore, thus, consequently, accordingly, so, hence, we may conclude, we may infer, implies that... (pg. 3).
  33. The component of an explanation that describes the event or phenomenon to be explained (pg. 20-21). Dr. Anacker's definition: "thing to be explained."
  34. A kind of logic that involves such concepts as possibility, necessity, belief, and doubt (pg. 5).
  35. The organized body of knowledge, or science, that evaluates arguments (pg. 1).
  36. Words that provide clues to identifying a premise: since, for, because, given that (pg. 3).
  37. A syllogism having a disjunctive statement for one or both of its premises (pg. 36).
  38. A group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion) (pg. 1).
  39. The attribute by which a statement is either true or false (pg. 2).
  40. The information content of a statement (pg. 5).
  41. A deductive argument that is invalid, has one or more false premises, or both (pg. 47-48).
  42. The condition represented by the consequent in a conditional statement (pg. 24).
  43. An inductive argument that depends on the existence of a similarity between two things or states of affairs (pg. 37-38).
  44. A deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises (pg. 47-48).
  45. A kind of logic in which the fundamental elements are terms, and arguments are evaluated as good or bad depending on how the terms are arranged in the argument (pg. 5).
  46. An inductive argument that proceeds from the knowledge of a sign to a claim about the thing or situation that the sign symbolizes (pg. 37-38).
  47. An argument incorporating the claim that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true (pg. 33-36).
  48. An expression involving one or more examples that is intended to show what something means or how it is done (pg. 19-20).
  49. A deductive argument in which the conclusion is claimed to depend merely on the definition of some word or phrase used in the premise or conclusion (pg. 36).