12 Angry Men Practice Exam

Critical thinking involves analyzing and evaluating information rather than accepting it at face value. It requires a reasoned approach to forming judgments based on evidence.

An assumption is an unstated premise that the argument relies on without being explicitly mentioned. Recognizing these assumptions is key for analyzing the strength of an argument.

Deductive reasoning starts with a general principle and applies it to a specific instance to draw a conclusion. This method provides conclusions that are logically certain if the premises are true.

Evidence acts as the foundation that supports the claims made within an argument. Using solid evidence helps to build a reliable and convincing argument.

The main objective of a critical thinking exercise is to deeply analyze and interpret information in order to make informed decisions. It promotes questioning and evaluation rather than rote memorization.

The ad hominem fallacy targets the individual making the argument instead of addressing the argument itself. This approach distracts from the actual issue by questioning the character of the person involved.

Inductive reasoning draws general conclusions from specific observations, but it does not guarantee certainty. In contrast, deductive reasoning moves from a general principle to a specific conclusion, yielding certainty if the premises are true.

A false dilemma restricts the available options to only two choices even though more exist. This oversimplification forces a decision between extremes, ignoring other viable alternatives.

Identifying cognitive biases helps minimize subjective errors in thinking. By becoming aware of these biases, one can approach problems more objectively and improve the quality of decision-making.

The credibility of the source plays a central role in verifying the legitimacy of any claim. Evaluating the reliability of where the information comes from is vital for sound reasoning.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to favor information that aligns with one's preconceptions. This bias can prevent individuals from considering contradictory evidence objectively.

An analogy draws parallels between two similar situations to clarify a point or argument. It makes complex ideas more relatable when the comparison is logical and relevant.

A sound argument is one where the premises are true and the reasoning is valid. It relies on factual evidence and structured logic rather than merely emotional appeals or personal experiences.

Critical thinking checklists allow one to systematically evaluate an argument for logical consistency. They provide criteria that help in spotting common fallacies and weaknesses in reasoning.

By questioning assumptions, one can uncover underlying biases that may cloud judgment. This process opens up new perspectives and leads to more innovative and well-rounded solutions.

René Descartes introduced the notion 'Cogito ergo sum,' which translates to 'I think, therefore I am.' This idea has greatly influenced modern critical thinking by emphasizing self-awareness and systematic doubt.

Bayesian reasoning allows one to update the likelihood of a hypothesis as new data becomes available. This adaptive process is essential for refining beliefs and making more informed, evidence-based decisions.

To distinguish correlation from causation, one must look for robust evidence, such as controlled experiments or statistical analyses that confirm a causal link. This scrutiny prevents making unwarranted conclusions based solely on observed associations.

Mitigating groupthink requires creating an environment where dissent is welcomed and multiple viewpoints are considered. This approach discourages conformity and promotes a thorough evaluation of all options.

Metacognition is about being aware of and reflecting on your own thinking processes. This self-awareness improves your ability to evaluate, adjust, and enhance your reasoning and problem-solving methods.