NS4 Fall 2002 HE1 Study Guide

The following Informal Fallacies from Weird Things, and some additional critical thinking tools have been presented in class. The review session told you which of these will be emphasized at this point in the course and on the exam.

Begging the Question (tautology)
False Dilemma
Equivocation (2 word meanings)
Composition (parts --> whole)
Division (whole --> parts)
Genetic Fallacy
Hasty Generalization
Faulty Analogy
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to the Masses
Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Ignorance
Appeal to Fear
Appeal to the Person (ad hominem)
post hoc ergo propter hoc
Confirmational Bias (cherry picking)
Subjective Validation
Reconstructed Memories
Burden of Proof
Inductive & Deductive
Argument by Analogy
reductio ad absurdum

Be familiar with the presentations given in class (UFOs and Poltergeists) and review the readings assigned for these from Hines and from Weird Things. Both of these topics have been integrated into the exam questions.

The exam will employ the Logic and Language material covered in Chapters 1 and 2 of Moore. The first part of the exam will be sixteen multiple choice questions worth four points each. There will be only one correct response to each question. Please record your response on a 882 Scantron form.

The second part of the exam will be questions requiring a written response. Please record your responses in the spaces provided on the exam. Your answers should be clear and concise, and fit within the space provided.

Specifically, be ready to:

• Know what paranormal and pseudoscientific "Forces of Unreason" are and what damage they can cause.
• Know the formal definition of an argument.
• The list of fallacies and critical thinking tools given above will also be listed on your exam. Be able to pick the proper fallacy when given an example of its use.
• Be able to analyze an argument, defining the Issue, and locating the premises and the conclusion.
• Know how to distinguish an Inductive argument from a Deductive one.
• Know how to recognize when an argument has been invalidated, either through a logic error , or because of a faulty premise.
• Know the difference between an Issue and a Topic.
• Know how to write missing premises or missing conclusions in an argument.
• Know the definitions of and the differences between the various forms of analogies: metaphor, simile, and allegory.
• Be able to recognize an argument by analogy, and be prepared to analyze it.
• Know the ways that arguments by analogies can be weakened or refuted. Know what is meant by a "strong" and "weak" analogy.
• Be able to write a deductive argument that supports a given conclusion. You will be provided with observations and other evidence. From the same information, be able to write an Inductive argument.
• Be able to write an argument by analogy, given an assertion you are to either support or refute.
• Be able to analyze a health claim that is based on an analogy. Use the method of tables shown in class. This often requires a bit of science to do good comparisons, but if you can recognize that "I would have to ask an expert if this comparison makes sense" you will have answered that part of the question.

Don't forget your 882 Scantron form, a #2 pencil, and a good eraser.