Critical Thinking Concepts

A type of reasoning that uses specific observations or examples to draw a general conclusion. It's like forming a guess based on what you see.

The ability to critically assess the reliability and trustworthiness of a source. It involves considering the author's expertise, potential biases, and the source's overall reputation.

The main idea or argument of an essay, statement, or research paper. It serves as a roadmap for the entire piece, providing a clear direction for the reader.

The act of presenting information in a way that unfairly favors a particular viewpoint, often by omitting or twisting facts to create a one-sided narrative.

A set of beliefs and practices presented as scientific, but lacking the rigorous methodology and evidence required for legitimate scientific claims. Often relies on anecdotal evidence and ignores contradictory data.

A logical fallacy where a conclusion is drawn prematurely from limited evidence. It involves making broad generalizations based on a small or unrepresentative sample.

A logical fallacy that argues a claim is true because there is no evidence to disprove it. It conflates the lack of evidence with proof of its opposite.

A principle of reasoning that encourages interpreting arguments in the most charitable way possible, considering the author's intent and aiming for the most logical and coherent understanding.

A fallacy that attempts to distract from the main issue by introducing an irrelevant topic to mislead the audience.

A systematic process of acquiring knowledge through empirical observation, experimentation, and logical reasoning.

An observation that two events occur together does not necessarily mean one caused the other. There might be another factor involved.

An argument is valid if its logical structure is sound, meaning the conclusion follows logically from the premises. However, a valid argument may have false premises.

A type of reasoning that draws general conclusions from specific observations and data.

A viewpoint or argument presented in opposition to a main claim, used to challenge the validity or persuasiveness of the original argument.

Consistency in an argument means that all claims within it are logically coherent and do not contradict each other.

A fallacy that assumes something must be true simply because many people believe it. This doesn't account for the accuracy of the belief.

A propositional logic statement that is true if at least one of its component parts is true.

An assumption made without sufficient evidence or justification.

A question that contains a hidden assumption or bias, influencing the answer.

A comparison between two things that are significantly different, making the comparison weak and unreliable.

A word or phrase used to soften or make something unpleasant seem more palatable.

A type of reasoning that uses evidence and avoids bias to arrive at a conclusion. It is strong and reliable, but not guaranteed to be true.

A type of essay that aims to persuade the reader by using evidence and reasoning.

The ability to critically analyze and evaluate media content, understanding its impact and messages.

Presenting only two options when more exist, often creating a false choice.

An argument that is logically strong and has true premises. It is considered a good argument because it is both valid and sound.

Rephrasing an argument in your own words to enhance understanding. It helps simplify the argument and reveal its structure.

A condition that must be met for an outcome to occur. If it's not met, the outcome is impossible.

A condition that guarantees the occurrence of an event. If it happens, the event will also occur.

The fallacy that assumes one event causes another simply because they happened together. Cause and effect are assumed without sufficient evidence.

Precision ensures clarity and avoids vagueness in thinking. It helps to avoid misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Counterexamples challenge the validity of an argument. They show that the argument's premises don't necessarily lead to its conclusion.

Using an expert's opinion or data to support a claim when the expert's knowledge is not relevant to the claim being made.

The process of presenting evidence or reasoning that challenges the validity of an argument.

Drawing a conclusion based on the similarities between two situations or things, assuming what applies to one will also apply to the other.

The ability to objectively and fairly evaluate arguments, considering all sides without bias.

The belief that truth is subjective and can vary based on individual perspectives, cultural backgrounds, or even personal experiences. For example, one culture might view certain traditions as sacred, while another might see them as outdated.

The idea that a good argument should have logical consistency between the premises and the conclusion. The conclusion should logically follow from the premises without any contradictions.

A process of generating ideas and gathering potential evidence to support a claim or argument. Brainstorming helps explore different angles and possibilities in the early stages of argument construction.

The foundation or supporting statements that provide evidence for the conclusion of an argument. Premises are like the building blocks that hold the conclusion together.

The ability to express ideas clearly and concisely, making it easy for others to understand and follow the reasoning. Avoiding ambiguous language and ensuring the meaning is straightforward, is crucial for effective critical thinking.

A fallacy that uses fear or threats to manipulate an audience into accepting a claim, even if it is not logically sound. It exploits fear to bypass rational thinking.

Measures the degree to which two variables are related, indicating whether they change together. Correlation does not imply causation, meaning that a relationship between variables doesn't necessarily mean one causes the other.

The fallacy of relying on the opinions or authority of a person or source, even if they are not experts in the relevant field. It assumes that simply because someone has authority, their claims are true.