Explanation Skills Flashcards

Which of the following best illustrates a 'coherent argument presentation' as part of explanation skills?

Answer: Presenting premises in a logical sequence that leads clearly to the conclusion

Coherent argument presentation requires that premises are organized in a logical sequence that visibly and directly supports the stated conclusion.

A nurse explains to a patient why a procedure is necessary by describing the underlying medical condition and the expected outcomes. This is an example of:

Answer: Providing a functional and evidence-based explanation tailored to the audience

An effective explanation links the condition to the intervention and to expected outcomes, providing a functional, evidence-based rationale appropriate for the audience.

Which of the following is an example of 'presenting evidence' as a component of explanation?

Answer: Citing specific data, studies, or observations that support the claim being made

Presenting evidence means offering specific, verifiable data or observations that provide grounds for accepting the claim being explained.

When an explanation contains internally contradictory statements, this is a failure of:

Answer: Logical consistency within the explanation

Internal contradictions violate logical consistency, meaning the explanation cannot be coherent if it simultaneously asserts incompatible claims.

A policy analyst says: 'Crime dropped after the new law passed, so the law caused the drop.' A critical thinker reviewing this explanation would flag:

Answer: The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy — assuming causation from temporal sequence alone

Assuming causation simply because one event followed another is the post hoc fallacy, a classic explanatory error on the CCTST.

Which feature most distinguishes a 'strong' explanation from a 'weak' one on the CCTST?

Answer: The extent to which the explanation is backed by relevant evidence and sound reasoning

Strength of explanation on the CCTST is determined by how well evidence and sound reasoning support the claim, not by length or style.

A critical thinker reviewing her own written explanation notices the reasoning could support more than one conclusion. The best next step is to:

Answer: Revise the explanation to specify which conclusion follows and why the alternatives do not

When reasoning is ambiguous, a skilled thinker revises to explicitly identify which conclusion is supported and eliminate ambiguity about alternatives.