Question i:
Statement:
What is cognitive bias?
Options:
a) The process of making decisions based on logical reasoning.
b) The tendency to make decisions based on personal characteristics and beliefs.
c) The evaluation of arguments using empirical evidence.
d) The method of constructing arguments using logical fallacies.
Correct Answer:
b
Explanation:
Cognitive bias refers to systematic errors in thinking that arise from personal beliefs, experiences, or emotions, leading to irrational judgments. Option b is correct because cognitive biases stem from subjective influences (e.g., stereotypes, emotions) rather than objective analysis.
- a is incorrect: Logical reasoning opposes cognitive bias, which is inherently illogical.
- c is incorrect: Cognitive biases often ignore empirical evidence in favor of preconceived notions.
- d is incorrect: Logical fallacies are flawed argument structures, while cognitive biases are unconscious mental shortcuts.
Tips and Tricks:
- Key phrase: “tendency” – Cognitive biases are unconscious tendencies, not deliberate methods.
- Remember: If an option describes objectivity (e.g., “logical reasoning,” “empirical evidence”), it likely contradicts cognitive bias.
Question ii:
Statement:
What is a hasty generalization fallacy?
Options:
a) Drawing a conclusion based on a large, representative sample.
b) Drawing a conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
c) Drawing a conclusion by misrepresenting an opponent’s argument.
d) Drawing a conclusion based on a false cause-and-effect relationship.
Correct Answer:
b
Explanation:
Hasty generalization occurs when a broad conclusion is made from inadequate or unrepresentative data. Option b directly defines this fallacy (e.g., “All crows are black” after seeing two crows).
- a is incorrect: Large samples support reliable generalizations, making this the opposite of hasty generalization.
- c describes the straw man fallacy.
- d describes the post hoc fallacy.
Tips and Tricks:
- Spot keywords: “insufficient evidence,” “small sample size,” or “jumping to conclusions.”
- Avoid confusion: If an option mentions “large sample” (a) or “cause-and-effect” (d), it refers to other fallacies.
Question iii:
Statement:
What does the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy assume?
Options:
a) One event is caused by another simply because it follows it.
b) One event is unrelated to another.
c) One event is the result of a thorough investigation.
d) One event is part of a larger series of events.
Correct Answer:
a
Explanation:
The post hoc fallacy (Latin: “after this, therefore because of this”) assumes Event A causes Event B solely because B occurs after A (e.g., “I wore a red shirt, then my team won; therefore, my shirt caused the win”).
- b is incorrect: The fallacy assumes a false connection, not unrelatedness.
- c is incorrect: This describes evidence-based reasoning, not a fallacy.
- d is incorrect: While events may be part of a series, post hoc specifically confuses sequence with causation.
Tips and Tricks:
- Translate the Latin: Post hoc = “after this.” If the answer highlights temporal sequence as causation, it’s correct.
- Real-world example: Superstitions (e.g., “I broke a mirror, then got into an accident; the mirror caused the accident”).
Question iv:
Statement:
Which fallacy involves attacking a distorted version of an opponent’s claim?
Options:
a) Confirmation Bias
b) Hasty Generalizations
c) The Straw Man Fallacy
d) Redefinition
Correct Answer:
c
Explanation:
The straw man fallacy misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack (e.g., oversimplifying “Reduce carbon emissions” to “You want to destroy the economy!”).
- a is incorrect: Confirmation bias is seeking evidence to support preexisting beliefs, not misrepresenting arguments.
- b is incorrect: Hasty generalization involves flawed sampling, not distortion of claims.
- d is incorrect: Redefinition changes word meanings but isn’t a formal fallacy.
Tips and Tricks:
- Visualize the name: A “straw man” is a weak dummy substitute for the real argument.
- Identify distortion: If an option describes twisting or exaggerating an opponent’s view, it’s likely straw man.
Summary of Correct Answers:
| Question | Correct Answer |
|---|---|
| i | b |
| ii | b |
| iii | a |
| iv | c |
Key Study Tip: Memorize fallacies using real-life examples. For instance:
- Cognitive bias → Believing a news article aligns with your views without fact-checking (confirmation bias).
- Hasty generalization → “My neighbor’s dog bit me; all dogs are aggressive!”
- Post hoc → “It rained after I washed my car; my car wash caused the rain.”
- Straw man → “You support renewable energy? So you’d leave us all in the dark!”
Question iv:
Statement:
Which fallacy involves attacking a distorted version of an opponent’s claim?
Options:
a) Confirmation Bias
b) Hasty Generalizations
c) The Straw Man Fallacy
d) Redefinition
Correct Answer:
c) The Straw Man Fallacy
Explanation:
The Straw Man Fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents or oversimplifies an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. For example:
- Original argument: “We should reduce fossil fuel use.”
- Straw man distortion: “You want to ban all cars and destroy the economy!”
Why others are incorrect: - a) Confirmation bias involves favoring information that confirms preexisting beliefs.
- b) Hasty generalizations draw conclusions from insufficient evidence.
- d) Redefinition changes word meanings but isn’t a formal fallacy.
Tips and Tricks:
- Visualize a “straw man” dummy: Attacking a weak, fake version of the real argument.
- Key phrase: “distorted version” = immediate link to Straw Man.
Question v:
Statement:
What does the principle of Occam’s Razor advocate?
Options:
a) Choosing the most complex explanation for an event
b) Choosing the simplest explanation for an event
c) Choosing an explanation based on tradition
d) Choosing an explanation based on authority
Correct Answer:
b) Choosing the simplest explanation for an event
Explanation:
Occam’s Razor states that when multiple explanations exist, the one with the fewest assumptions is most likely correct. Simplicity minimizes unnecessary complexity.
Why others are incorrect:
- a) Complexity often introduces unwarranted assumptions.
- c) Tradition may perpetuate errors (e.g., appeal to tradition fallacy).
- d) Authority doesn’t guarantee truth (e.g., appeal to authority fallacy).
Tips and Tricks:
- Remember: “The simplest solution is usually the best.”
- Example: Preferring gravity over invisible angels to explain falling objects.
Question vi:
Statement:
What is an example of the appeal to tradition fallacy?
Options:
a) Believing a theory is valid because an expert supports it
b) Believing a practice is correct because it has always been done that way
c) Believing an argument because it cannot be tested
d) Believing a hypothesis because it is the simplest explanation
Correct Answer:
b) Believing a practice is correct because it has always been done that way
Explanation:
Appeal to tradition assumes longevity implies validity (e.g., “Bloodletting works because doctors did it for centuries”).
Why others are incorrect:
- a) Describes appeal to authority.
- c) Relates to untestable claims, not tradition.
- d) Describes Occam’s Razor.
Tips and Tricks:
- Spot phrases like “we’ve always done this” or “it’s traditional.”
- Tradition ≠ correctness (e.g., historical use of lead in makeup).
Question vii:
Statement:
Which of the following is a pro of chemical substances?
Options:
a) They always have a negative impact on health
b) They reduce carbon footprints through clean energy technologies
c) They are always safe for workers
d) They never cause environmental pollution
Correct Answer:
b) They reduce carbon footprints through clean energy technologies
Explanation:
Chemicals enable green technologies (e.g., lithium-ion batteries for electric cars, catalytic converters).
Why others are incorrect:
- a) and d) use absolutes (“always,” “never”) – chemicals have nuanced impacts.
- c) Safety depends on handling/regulations, not inherent properties.
Tips and Tricks:
- Reject absolute terms; focus on context-specific benefits.
- Link “clean energy” to chemical innovation (solar panels, biofuels).
Question viii:
Statement:
What is a con of weak or outdated regulations regarding chemicals?
Options:
a) They protect public health effectively
b) They foster innovation in chemical processes
c) They fail to address current risks
d) They reduce compliance costs for companies
Correct Answer:
c) They fail to address current risks
Explanation:
Outdated regulations ignore modern threats (e.g., nanoplastics, PFAS “forever chemicals”) due to evolving science.
Why others are incorrect:
- a) Weak regulations endanger health.
- b) Innovation requires safety frameworks to avoid disasters (e.g., Bhopal gas tragedy).
- d) Reduced costs for companies ≠ public benefit.
Tips and Tricks:
- “Fail to address” signals unmanaged dangers.
- Historical cases: Asbestos regulations lagged decades behind evidence.
Question ix:
Statement:
What role do premises play in a scientific argument?
Options:
a) They oppose the main claim
b) They provide the foundation for the claim
c) They represent the conclusion
d) They are unsupported assumptions
Correct Answer:
b) They provide the foundation for the claim
Explanation:
Premises are evidence-based statements supporting a conclusion (e.g., “CO₂ traps heat [premise 1]; human activity emits CO₂ [premise 2] → thus, humans cause warming [claim]”).
Why others are incorrect:
- a) Counterclaims oppose; premises support.
- c) Conclusions follow from premises.
- d) Premises should be empirically validated.
Tips and Tricks:
- Premises = “building blocks” of arguments.
- Test: “Does this statement back up the main idea?”
Question x:
Statement:
In the context of written articles, what would be a counterclaim for promoting electric vehicles?
Options:
a) Electric cars produce no emissions
b) Urban areas suffer from high air pollution
c) Electric cars still have high environmental costs due to battery production
Correct Answer:
c) Electric cars still have high environmental costs due to battery production
Explanation:
A counterclaim challenges the main argument. Promoting EVs often highlights zero tailpipe emissions (a), but battery production involves mining, energy use, and waste (c).
Why others are incorrect:
- a) Supports EV promotion.
- b) Justifies EVs as a solution to pollution.
Tips and Tricks:
- Counterclaims introduce drawbacks/limitations.
- Key conflict: “Environmental costs” vs. perceived sustainability.
Answer Summary:
| Q | Correct | Key Concept |
|---|---|---|
| iv | c | Straw Man Fallacy |
| v | b | Occam’s Razor |
| vi | b | Appeal to Tradition |
| vii | b | Pros of Chemicals |
| viii | c | Regulation Cons |
| ix | b | Premises in Arguments |
| x | c | Counterclaims |
