Critical Thinking and Decision Making Flashcards
7 cards from real FAST practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 Critical Thinking and Decision Making flashcards as text
A team is debating whether to launch a new product. One member argues, 'We've already spent $2 million developing it, so we must launch it.' What decision-making error does this represent?
Answer: Sunk cost fallacy
The sunk cost fallacy occurs when past irreversible investments inappropriately influence future decisions, instead of evaluating only future costs and benefits.
Which of the following scenarios best illustrates deductive reasoning?
Answer: If all mammals are warm-blooded and whales are mammals, then whales are warm-blooded
Deductive reasoning draws a logically certain conclusion from true premises — if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, as in the classic syllogism format.
When two credible studies produce conflicting results about the same topic, the best critical thinking approach is to:
Answer: Look for methodological differences and seek additional evidence
Conflicting studies should be examined for differences in methodology, sample size, population, and context before accepting either result, and additional evidence should be sought.
An argument's conclusion does NOT logically follow from its premises even though the premises are true. This argument is best described as:
Answer: Invalid regardless of the truth of the premises
Validity concerns whether the conclusion follows logically from the premises; if it does not, the argument is invalid regardless of whether the premises are true or false.
Which heuristic describes the tendency to rely heavily on the first piece of information received when making decisions?
Answer: Anchoring heuristic
The anchoring heuristic describes the cognitive bias where the first piece of information encountered disproportionately influences subsequent judgments and estimates.
A logical argument states: 'All effective leaders communicate well. Jordan communicates well. Therefore, Jordan is an effective leader.' What is wrong with this argument?
Answer: It commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent
This argument affirms the consequent — just because communicating well is a property of effective leaders does not mean everyone who communicates well is an effective leader.
In the context of critical thinking, what is the primary purpose of 'steelmanning' an opposing argument?
Answer: To present the strongest possible version of an opposing view before critiquing it
Steelmanning involves constructing the strongest version of an opposing argument to ensure you are addressing its best form, leading to more rigorous and honest analysis.