← Back to the Critical Thinking outline The Course Maker
← Critical Thinking outline
Week 8 · Midterm study guide

Midterm Exam — Study Guide

Critical Thinking Free sample edition

Coverage — what the midterm covers

The midterm is cumulative over Weeks 1–7. It opens in the Week 8 module and closes at the due time your instructor sets. There is no time limit, and you get one attempt. The questions appear one at a time, and you cannot go back once you move on.

Format: 25 questions, and every question counts the same. Each one gives a short list and asks you to pick the one best fit. Every passage a question uses is printed in the question and labelled illustrative. When a question involves a Venn diagram, the diagram is described in words.

What is in scope, with the number of midterm questions on each course objective:

Midterm coverage by course objective: the weeks its questions come from, its main skills, and its number of questions out of 25
Course objective Weeks its questions come from Main skills Questions
Identifying arguments (Objective 1) 1 Claims and non-claims; argument vs. explanation; opinions as claims; stated reasons 5
Analyzing arguments (Objective 2) 2, 5, and 7 Standard form; supplied premises; argument maps with objections and replies; rewriting everyday rules; reading a proposal charitably 5
Evaluating deductive reasoning (Objective 3) 3, 4, and 5 Valid, sound, strong, cogent; deductive vs. inductive; counterexamples; the conditional forms; necessary vs. sufficient; the four categorical forms; Venn diagrams 11
Language and fallacies (Objective 4) 6 and 7 Kinds of definition; vagueness vs. ambiguity; equivocation; loaded wording; the fallacies of relevance 4

Evaluating deductive reasoning carries the most questions by far, 11 of the 25, so put the most review time on Weeks 3, 4, and 5. By week, Weeks 1 and 4 have 5 questions each, Week 3 has 4, Weeks 2, 5, and 6 have 3 each, and Week 7 has 2. By difficulty, 10 questions are easy, 11 are medium, and 4 are hard.

Week 8's three fallacies of presumption are taught in Week 8 and practiced in its discussion and practice set; they are not part of the midterm's scope. The form you will sit draws every question from the Weeks 1–7 question bank, and Week 8 has no weekly quiz, so no question on it comes from Week 8. This guide still reviews the three presumption fallacies at the end of the topic review as Week 8 practice, because they reuse the Week 2 supplied-premise move.

Topic-by-topic review

Week 8 reviewed the first half by the one test or the one distinction each topic asks for, and this guide does the same. Each week gives that test first, then the key idea in plain words, the course's own definitions, the course example, and the mistakes students make most often with their cures. Every passage below is illustrative, written for the course. The deeper review for every topic is that week's chapter, lecture page, and slide deck.

Week 1 — Claims, arguments, and explanations

  • The distinction: argument vs. explanation. Ask whether the claim being supported is still in doubt for the audience. If it is, the passage argues; if everyone already accepts it, the passage explains.
  • Key idea: before you can judge an argument, you have to find one. Many passages that contain "because" are telling you why something happened, not trying to convince you of it.
  • Definitions: a claim is a sentence that is either true or false; questions, commands, and reports of a feeling taken as a feeling are not claims, though a question or a command can carry an implied claim. An opinion is a claim someone holds; calling a claim an opinion does not take it out of evaluation, because the reasons offered for it can still be strong or weak. An argument is a set of claims in which one or more, the premises, are offered as reasons to accept another, the conclusion. An explanation gives reasons why something already accepted is so, rather than reasons to believe something still in question.
  • Indicator words: premise indicators such as because, since, given that, and for often signal a premise. Conclusion indicators such as so, therefore, thus, hence, and which shows that often signal a conclusion. They are clues, not proof, and many arguments carry no indicator at all.
  • Course example: "The game was canceled because the field flooded" explains a result everyone already accepts. "The game will be canceled, because the field is flooding" argues for a claim still in question. The running question's passage holds 1 conclusion and 3 stated reasons, so 1 + 3 = 4 claims.
  • Predictable mistakes → cures: (1) An explanation read as an argument. Cure: the doubt test; if nobody doubts the claim, the passage is telling you why. (2) "Because" read as always marking a premise. Cure: "because" also introduces explanations, so check the audience. (3) An opinion read as beyond evaluation. Cure: calling a claim an opinion does not take it out of evaluation; its reasons can still be strong or weak. (4) A long passage read as one argument when it holds two. Cure: find each conclusion first, then its reasons.

Week 2 — Analyzing arguments

  • The tool: standard form and the supplied premise. The map: linked vs. independent premises, with objections and replies drawn as arrows marked "against".
  • Key idea: writing an argument out, one claim to a line, shows exactly what it says and where it is thin. The gap a writer left unsaid is often the weakest point.
  • Definitions: standard form writes each premise on its own numbered line (P1, P2, P3), then a line reading So, and then the conclusion on its own line marked C, with indicator words removed. A supplied premise is an unstated premise that the analyst writes out and marks (supplied) after its number. The principle of charity is the rule of choosing, among the readings the words allow, the one that makes an argument as reasonable as possible. It also means supplying the weakest unstated premise that connects the stated premises to the conclusion. It rebuilds the argument given and never invents a view or signals agreement.
  • Maps: linked premises support a conclusion only together, so removing any one makes the support collapse. Independent premises each give some support on their own. An objection is a box with an arrow marked "against" pointing at the claim it attacks. A reply is a box with an arrow marked "against" pointing at the objection it answers. The cover-up test sorts linked from independent: hide one premise and ask whether the other still gives any reason for the conclusion.
  • Course example: the running question in standard form has 3 stated premises (P1, P2, P4) + 1 supplied premise (P3) = 4 premises, and 4 premises + 1 conclusion = 5 lines. P3 (supplied) reads "The campus should provide study space students need during finals when it can do so at modest cost." P1, P2, and P3 are linked; P4 supports P3's "modest cost" condition.
  • Predictable mistakes → cures: (1) The supplied premise read as the arguer's stated view. Cure: the "(supplied)" mark says the words are the analyst's. (2) Charity read as agreeing with the argument. Cure: charity picks the fairest reading so your criticism lands on the real argument. (3) A map read as a picture that needs no words. Cure: describe every arrow in a sentence. (4) Linked premises drawn as independent. Cure: run the cover-up test.

Week 3 — Deductive and inductive reasoning

  • The distinctions: valid vs. sound, and strong vs. cogent. The test: the counterexample method.
  • Key idea: judging the link and judging the facts are two separate jobs. An argument can have a working link and a false premise, or true premises and a broken link.
  • Definitions: a deductive argument has premises meant to guarantee its conclusion. An inductive argument has premises meant to make its conclusion probable rather than to guarantee it. An argument is valid when it is impossible for all its premises to be true and its conclusion false. It is sound when it is valid and has every premise true. An inductive argument is strong when its premises, if true, would make its conclusion likely; strength comes in degrees. It is cogent when it is strong and its premises are all true, and even a cogent argument can have a false conclusion.
  • The counterexample method: describe one case with the same form in which every premise is true and the conclusion is false. If such a case exists, the form is invalid.
  • Course example: the step from P1, P2, and P3 to C is valid once the cost is granted to be modest. P4's figure, 2 staff × 8 hours × 5 nights × 20 dollars an hour = 1,600 dollars, makes "modest" likely but cannot guarantee it. That is 1 deductive link + 1 inductive link = 2 support links, so the running question can be no better than cogent.
  • Predictable mistakes → cures: (1) Valid read as true. Cure: valid is about the link; ask "if the premises were true, could the conclusion be false?" (2) A valid argument assumed to have a true conclusion. Cure: a false premise can feed a valid form and reach a false conclusion. (3) Sound and valid used as synonyms. Cure: sound adds "every premise true". (4) Strength read as all-or-nothing. Cure: strength comes in degrees. (5) Cogent read as meaning valid. Cure: cogent belongs to inductive arguments; valid belongs to deductive ones.

Week 4 — Conditionals and deductive forms

  • The distinctions: the conditional vs. its converse and contrapositive, and necessary vs. sufficient.
  • Key idea: an "if" sentence makes one promise, and it breaks that promise in only one situation. Most mistakes come from turning the sentence around the wrong way.
  • Definitions: a conditional is a claim of the form "if P, then Q", false in exactly one situation, when P is true and Q is false. P is the antecedent (the if-part) and Q is the consequent (the then-part). "P only if Q" is rewritten "if P, then Q" before it is tested. The converse is "if Q, then P" and the inverse is "if not P, then not Q"; each can be false when the original is true. The contrapositive is "if not Q, then not P", and it is always true or false together with the original. In "if P, then Q", P is sufficient for Q and Q is necessary for P.
  • The six forms:
The argument-form set: each form's pattern in words and its verdict
Form Pattern Verdict
modus ponens if P, then Q; P; so Q valid
modus tollens if P, then Q; not Q; so not P valid
hypothetical syllogism if P, then Q; if Q, then R; so if P, then R valid
disjunctive syllogism P or Q; not P; so Q valid
affirming the consequent if P, then Q; Q; so P invalid
denying the antecedent if P, then Q; not P; so not Q invalid
  • Course example: take "If it rained overnight, the soccer field is wet." The contrapositive, "If the soccer field is not wet, it did not rain overnight", is equivalent. The converse, "If the soccer field is wet, it rained overnight", is not. The sprinklers ran overnight and it did not rain, which refutes both invalid forms. That leaves 4 valid forms + 2 invalid forms = 6 forms. The truth table has 2 × 2 = 4 rows and 1 false row. Last, "You can register for the course only if you passed the prerequisite" makes passing necessary for registering. It is not sufficient, because you also need an open seat.
  • Predictable mistakes → cures: (1) Affirming the consequent read as valid. Cure: look for the sprinkler case, the then-part true for another reason. (2) The converse read as equivalent. Cure: only the contrapositive swaps and denies both parts. (3) "Only if" read as "if". Cure: what follows "only if" goes in the then-slot. (4) A necessary condition read as a sufficient one. Cure: necessary means "can't do without"; sufficient means "enough on its own". (5) Denying the antecedent read as the same as modus tollens. Cure: modus tollens denies the then-part; denying the antecedent denies the if-part.

Week 5 — Categorical reasoning

  • The test: the Venn verdict. Shade the regions the premises say are empty, place an X where they say something exists, then check whether the conclusion's region is already settled.
  • Key idea: some arguments are about groups rather than "if" sentences. Three overlapping circles show every way the groups could sit, and the premises either settle the conclusion or leave it open.
  • Definitions: the four categorical forms are All S are P (the universal affirmative) and No S are P (the universal negative). Then come Some S are P (the particular affirmative) and Some S are not P (the particular negative). "Some" means at least one. A categorical syllogism has two premises and a conclusion in these forms and uses exactly three terms. The middle term appears in both premises and never in the conclusion. On the modern reading, All S are P says only that nothing is S without being P, and makes no claim that any S exists.
  • Rewriting everyday claims: "only members may vote" becomes "all voters are members". The group after "only" moves into the P-slot.
  • Course example: a syllogism has 3 terms, so 3 circles, and 2 × 2 × 2 = 8 regions, counting the region outside all three. "All poodles are dogs. All beagles are dogs. So all poodles are beagles." The region of poodles that are not beagles, inside the dog circle, is left unshaded, so the syllogism is invalid. The set holds 3 valid + 3 invalid = 6 syllogisms.
  • Predictable mistakes → cures: (1) "All S are P" read as "All P are S". Cure: all poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles. (2) "Some" read as "some but not all". Cure: "some" means at least one, and it leaves "all" open. (3) Two premises sharing a term read as enough for a valid conclusion. Cure: draw it; the poodles-and-beagles region stays open. (4) A Venn diagram read as showing how many things are in each region. Cure: shading means empty and an X means at least one, nothing more.

Week 6 — Language and meaning

  • The distinction: vagueness vs. ambiguity.
  • Key idea: words can carry a conclusion without arguing for it. A fuzzy edge, a double meaning, or a charged word can make reasons look stronger than they are.
  • Definitions: a reporting definition states how a word is generally used. A stipulative definition sets a new or special use for a stated purpose. A precising definition sharpens a vague word for a purpose by drawing a line through its borderline cases. A persuasive definition builds a verdict into the meaning of a word. A vague term has borderline cases, such as "tall", "affordable", or "late at night". An ambiguous term has two or more distinct meanings that both fit its context. Equivocation is the fallacy of letting one word or phrase shift meaning between the premises, or between a premise and the conclusion. Loaded language is wording chosen for its emotional charge, so that it carries a conclusion while the facts it describes can stay true.
  • Part and whole: composition reasons that a whole has a feature because each part has it. Division reasons that each part has a feature because the whole has it. Both fail when the feature does not pass between parts and whole.
  • Course example: "The sign says 'Fine for parking here.' Since it is fine to park here, I won't get a ticket." On the sign, "fine" means a penalty. In the conclusion, it means "all right", so the passage commits equivocation. "Late at night" is vague, with borderline cases but no second meaning. Through Week 6 the course keyed 3 fallacy passages: equivocation, composition, and division.
  • Predictable mistakes → cures: (1) Ambiguity read as vagueness. Cure: ask "two meanings, or a fuzzy edge?" (2) A vague term read as useless. Cure: most useful words are vague at the edges; make them precise when it matters. (3) Loaded language read as lying. Cure: the facts can be true while the wording carries the verdict.

Week 7 — Fallacies of relevance

  • The distinction: a fallacy vs. a false premise. The test: if this premise were true, would it bear on whether the conclusion is true?
  • Key idea: a fallacy of relevance swaps a real reason for something that only feels like one: an insult, a feeling, a head count, or a change of subject.
  • Definitions: a fallacy is a flaw in the reasoning that connects an argument's premises to its conclusion, so the premises fail to support the conclusion even when they are true. A false premise is a premise that is not true, a flaw in content rather than in reasoning; an argument can have one and still be valid. The attack on the person (ad hominem) rejects a claim because of a fact about the person who made it. The you-too (tu quoque) dismisses advice because the adviser does not follow it. The circumstantial attack on the person dismisses a claim because of the arguer's situation or interests. The straw man answers a weaker or distorted version of the opposing position.
  • More of the set: the appeal to fear and the appeal to pity (ad misericordiam) offer a feeling in place of evidence. The appeal to popularity (ad populum) offers a head count in place of reasons. The red herring changes the subject and treats the new issue as if it settled the old one. The appeal to unqualified authority (ad verecundiam) rests a claim on an authority when relevant expertise, expert agreement, or independence is missing.
  • The non-fallacious neighbors: a documented conflict of interest is a reason to weigh testimony with care, not a refutation. An appeal to authority is good inductive evidence when the authority has relevant expertise, experts broadly agree, and no serious conflict of interest exists. Emotion that fits good reasons is not a fallacy.
  • The source: Locke (1690), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book IV, Chapter 17, named ad verecundiam and ad ignorantiam and recorded ad hominem as a name already in use. His own ad hominem meant pressing someone with the consequences of their own principles, which differs from the modern meaning.
  • Course example: "We can ignore the treasurer's budget proposal; she failed a math class in high school" commits the attack on the person, because the premise would not bear on the budget even if true. If the running question's P2 turned out false, the argument would have a false premise, not a fallacy. The keys through Week 7 total 3 Week 6 passages + 9 Week 7 passages = 12.
  • Predictable mistakes → cures: (1) Any criticism of a person read as an attack on the person. Cure: ask whether the point bears on the evidence, as a conflict of interest does. (2) Any appeal to an expert read as a fallacy. Cure: check field, agreement, and independence. (3) A straw man read as a strong objection. Cure: compare it with what the other side actually said. (4) Emotion read as a fallacy in itself. Cure: emotion is fine when good reasons stand behind it. (5) A false premise read as a fallacy. Cure: a false premise is a content flaw; a fallacy is a reasoning flaw.

Week 8 — The fallacies of presumption (Week 8 practice; not on the midterm)

  • The test: write the hidden assumption out as a supplied premise, the Week 2 move, and ask what supports it.
  • Definitions: a fallacy of presumption quietly assumes, without support, the very thing it should be supporting. A false dilemma (false dichotomy) presents two options as the only ones when others exist. Begging the question (circular reasoning) assumes in a premise what the conclusion is meant to show. A loaded question (complex question) builds a disputed claim into its wording, so any direct yes or no concedes the claim; the fair move is to challenge the hidden claim instead.
  • Course example: "Either we raise student parking fees or the library closes on weekends" hides the premise "these are the only two options", and nothing supports it. The keys now total 12 + 3 = 15 of the 20 passages in the fallacy set, with 20 − 15 = 5 still to come.
  • The neighbors: two options are fine when they really are the only two. Begging the question is not "raising the question". A loaded question is challenged, not answered.

Representative practice

These are fresh variants, not the midterm's questions. Work each worked example yourself first, then compare your steps. Every scenario below is illustrative, invented for this guide, and attributed to no one. Weeks 3, 4, and 5 get the most practice, because the midterm leans on them hardest.

Worked example — a theater sorts its messages (Week 1)

A community theater's group chat (illustrative) holds five messages:

  1. "Is the matinee sold out?"
  2. "Arrive at the stage door by six."
  3. "I am so nervous about the second act!"
  4. "The prop table is stored behind the stage-left curtain."
  5. "The show started twenty minutes late because the lighting board crashed."
  • Step 1, claims: message 1 is a question and message 2 is a command, so neither is a claim. Message 3 reports a feeling taken as a feeling. Message 4 is a claim, true or false. Message 5 is made of claims.
  • Step 2, the doubt test on message 5: everyone in the chat already knows the show started late. The "because" tells them why, so message 5 explains rather than argues.
  • Step 3, rewrite it as an argument: "We should start tonight's show twenty minutes late, because the lighting board is still rebooting." Now the late start is a proposal still in doubt, so the sentence argues. It has 1 conclusion and 1 stated reason.
  • The trap: the word "because" appears in both versions. The audience, not the word, decides.

Why it matters: an explanation answers "why is it so?", and an argument answers "why believe it?".

Worked example — a crosswalk request in standard form (Week 2)

A neighborhood letter (illustrative) says: "The town should paint a crosswalk at the corner by the park. Many children cross there on their way to the playground. Drivers on that stretch often go faster than the posted limit."

  • Step 1, the conclusion: the town should paint a crosswalk at the corner by the park. It goes last, on the C line.
  • Step 2, the stated premises: P1, many children cross at the corner on their way to the playground. P2, drivers on that stretch often go faster than the posted limit.
  • Step 3, the gap: nothing stated says the town ought to act on that danger. P3 (supplied): "When many children cross at a spot where drivers speed, the town should mark a crossing there." It asks no more than the letter needs.
  • Step 4, the tally: 2 stated premises + 1 supplied premise = 3 premises, and 3 premises + 1 conclusion = 4 lines.
  • Step 5, the map in words: P1, P2, and P3 work together to support C, so they are linked, with one arrow from the joined boxes to C. Cover up P2: children crossing at a quiet corner gives little reason for paint, so the support collapses.
  • Step 6, objection and reply: an objection, "paint alone can give children a false sense of safety", is a box with an arrow marked "against" pointing at C. A reply, "the town can add a sign and a raised curb with the paint", is a box with an arrow marked "against" pointing at the objection.

Why it matters: the supplied premise is often where an argument is thinnest, and charity keeps it modest.

Worked example — two arguments about getting around (Week 3)

Argument A (illustrative): "Every bike in the town's bike-share program has a bell. This green bike is in the program. So this green bike has a bell." In fact, one bike in the program lost its bell last month, and the green bike is that bike.

  • Step 1, deductive or inductive: the premises are offered to guarantee the conclusion, so it is deductive.
  • Step 2, the link: if both premises were true, the green bike could not lack a bell, so the argument is valid.
  • Step 3, the facts: the first premise is false, so the argument is valid but not sound, and its conclusion is false.

Argument B (illustrative): "The 7:40 commuter train has arrived on time every morning for the past month. So it will arrive on time tomorrow morning."

  • Step 4, deductive or inductive: a month of mornings makes tomorrow likely but cannot guarantee it, so it is inductive.
  • Step 5, strength: the record is long and recent, so the argument is fairly strong. A snowstorm in the forecast would weaken it, which shows strength comes in degrees.
  • Step 6, cogency: if the month's record is accurate, the argument is cogent. Even so, tomorrow's train can still run late.

Why it matters: the link and the facts are two separate questions, so ask them in that order.

Worked example — a counterexample on demand (Week 3)

A friend argues (illustrative): "If the battery is dead, the phone won't turn on. The phone won't turn on. So the battery is dead."

  • Step 1, the form: if P, then Q; Q; so P. That is affirming the consequent.
  • Step 2, build the counterexample: the battery is fully charged, but the power button is broken, so the phone won't turn on.
  • Step 3, check it: the first premise is still true, the second premise is true, and the conclusion is false.
  • Verdict in words: the premises can both hold while the conclusion fails, so the argument is invalid, even though the battery might in fact be dead.

Why it matters: one possible case with true premises and a false conclusion settles invalidity. You do not need to know what really happened.

Worked example — a museum's rules turned around (Week 4)

An art museum (illustrative) posts: "If a visitor shows a member card, the visitor gets in free."

  • Step 1, the parts: P is "a visitor shows a member card"; Q is "the visitor gets in free".
  • Step 2, the converse: "If a visitor gets in free, the visitor showed a member card." It can be false: children may get in free without a card. Not equivalent.
  • Step 3, the inverse: "If a visitor does not show a member card, the visitor does not get in free." It can be false for the same reason. Not equivalent.
  • Step 4, the contrapositive: "If a visitor does not get in free, the visitor did not show a member card." It is always true or false together with the rule. Equivalent.
  • Step 5, necessary and sufficient: showing a member card is sufficient for free entry; getting in free is necessary for having shown a card.

The museum also posts (illustrative): "You may enter the rare-book room only if you sign the visitor log."

  • Step 6, rewrite "only if": "If you may enter the rare-book room, then you signed the visitor log."
  • Step 7, the relation: signing the log is necessary for entering, but the rule does not make it sufficient. You might also need an appointment.

Why it matters: only the contrapositive keeps the meaning, and what follows "only if" goes in the then-slot.

Worked example — naming forms by their pattern (Week 4)

Three short arguments (illustrative):

  1. "If the smoke alarm is sounding, there is smoke in the kitchen. There is no smoke in the kitchen. So the smoke alarm is not sounding."
  2. "Either the meeting is in the gym or it is online. It is not in the gym. So it is online."
  3. "If the snow is deep, the buses run late. The snow is not deep. So the buses do not run late."
  • Argument 1: if P, then Q; not Q; so not P. Modus tollens, valid.
  • Argument 2: P or Q; not P; so Q. Disjunctive syllogism: valid.
  • Argument 3: if P, then Q; not P; so not Q. Denying the antecedent: invalid. Counterexample: the snow is light, but a driver shortage makes the buses run late anyway.

Why it matters: the pattern decides the verdict, not the topic, so strip each argument down to P, Q, and "not".

Worked example — menu groups in three circles (Week 5)

Syllogism A (illustrative): "No vegan dishes on this menu contain cheese. All the dumplings on this menu are vegan dishes. So no dumplings on this menu contain cheese."

  • Step 1, the terms: vegan dishes (the middle term), cheese dishes, and dumplings: 3 terms, 3 circles, 2 × 2 × 2 = 8 regions.
  • Step 2, shade for premise 1: shade the whole vegan-and-cheese overlap.
  • Step 3, shade for premise 2: shade the part of the dumpling circle outside the vegan circle.
  • Step 4, check: the whole dumpling-and-cheese overlap is now shaded, so the conclusion is already settled. Valid.

Syllogism B (illustrative): "All the paintings in the gallery are framed. Some framed things in the gallery are mirrors. So some paintings in the gallery are mirrors."

  • Step 5, shade first: shade the part of the painting circle outside the framed circle.
  • Step 6, then the X: the X for "some framed things are mirrors" could sit inside or outside the painting circle, so it goes on the painting circle's line.
  • Step 7, check: no X is forced into the painting-and-mirror overlap. Invalid.

A rewrite (illustrative): a race sign says "Only registered runners may enter the start corrals." It becomes "All people who may enter the start corrals are registered runners", a universal affirmative.

Why it matters: shade before you place an X, and read the diagram as empty or not empty, never as a count.

Worked example — words that do the arguing (Week 6)

Four short passages (illustrative):

  1. A phone plan ad promises "fast data". Is "fast" vague or ambiguous? Vague: there are borderline speeds where careful people could disagree. A precising definition would name a minimum speed.
  2. A recipe card reads "The chicken is ready to eat." Vague or ambiguous? Ambiguous: the chicken may be cooked and ready to serve, or a pet chicken may be ready for its feed.
  3. "Nothing is better than a long vacation. A cold sandwich is better than nothing. So a cold sandwich is better than a long vacation." "Nothing" means "no thing at all" in the first premise and "having nothing" in the second. Equivocation.
  4. A gaming forum post says "a true gamer never plays on easy mode". That is a persuasive definition: it builds the verdict "easy mode is lesser" into the word.

A town adds a curbside recycling fee (illustrative). A local blog calls it "a trash tax slapped on residents", and the town's notice calls it "a small fee to fund curbside recycling". Both describe true facts, yet the blog's phrasing leans the reader toward a verdict. That is loaded language, not lying.

Why it matters: ask "two meanings, or a fuzzy edge?" before you call a word a problem.

Worked example — relevant or not (Week 7)

Four passages (illustrative):

  1. "Don't trust that critic's review of the new noodle bar; he once burned toast on a cooking show." His kitchen skills do not bear on whether the review's reasons hold. Attack on the person (ad hominem).
  2. "My running coach says to stretch before a race, but I saw him skip it, so stretching is pointless." Whether the coach follows the advice does not bear on whether it is good. You-too (tu quoque).
  3. A tenant proposes one quiet hour in the building's courtyard, from ten to eleven each night. Another tenant replies, "So they want to ban all fun in this building." That reply answers a position nobody stated. Straw man. The charitable reading is "one quiet hour a night", and a fair reply answers that.
  4. "All members of the robotics club live on campus. The club's treasurer is a member. So the treasurer lives on campus." In this illustrative case, two members live off campus, and the treasurer is one of them. The form is valid, but the first premise is false. That is a false premise, not a fallacy.

Why it matters: first ask whether the premise would bear on the conclusion if true. Only then ask whether it is true.

Worked example — hidden assumptions (Week 8)

Four remarks (illustrative):

  1. A salesperson says: "Either you buy the extended warranty, or you'll pay for every repair yourself." Hidden premise (supplied): "these are the only two options". Other options exist, such as the maker's own warranty. False dilemma.
  2. "This podcast is trustworthy because it never says anything untrustworthy." The premise says what the conclusion says in other words. Begging the question.
  3. A housemate asks: "Why did you let the plants die?" The question builds in the disputed claim "you let the plants die". Challenge that claim instead of explaining. Loaded question.
  4. "Either the package arrived or it did not." These really are the only two options, so this is no fallacy.

Why it matters: write the assumption out, then ask what supports it.

Self-check questions

Try each one, then read the check and the one-line why. Every scenario is illustrative.

  1. "The bus was late because a tree fell across the road," says a rider to friends who waited with her. Argument or explanation? Check: explanation. Why: everyone already accepts that the bus was late.
  2. "Please silence your phones before the film." Is it a claim? Check: no, it is a command. Why: it is neither true nor false.
  3. A student writes a passage in standard form and adds a premise the writer never said. Where does the "(supplied)" mark go? Check: right after that premise's number. Why: it tells readers the words are the analyst's.
  4. "Skip the ridge trail this afternoon: it is icy, and it has no railing." Are the two premises linked or independent? Check: independent. Why: cover either one, and the other still gives some reason to skip the trail.
  5. Can a valid argument have a false conclusion? Check: yes. Why: a false premise can feed a valid form and reach a false conclusion.
  6. Suppose an inductive argument is strong, but one of its premises is false. Is it cogent? Check: no. Why: cogent means strong with every premise true.
  7. "If the food truck is serving, its awning is up." Write the contrapositive. Check: "If the awning is not up, the food truck is not serving." Why: the contrapositive swaps and denies both parts.
  8. "If the library is open, the lights are on. The lights are on. So the library is open." Valid or invalid? Check: invalid, affirming the consequent. Why: a cleaning crew could have the lights on in a closed library.
  9. "No reptiles are mammals." Which categorical form is it? Check: the universal negative, No S are P. Why: it says nothing is in both groups.
  10. A housing plan promises "affordable rent". Vague or ambiguous? Check: vague. Why: it has borderline cases, not two distinct meanings.
  11. "Nine out of ten tenants in my building think the new mural is ugly, so it is ugly." Name the fallacy. Check: appeal to popularity (ad populum). Why: a head count stands in for reasons.
  12. A cardiologist explains how a common heart medication works. Is relying on her a fallacy? Check: no. Why: she speaks inside her field, which makes her testimony good inductive evidence.
  13. "Have you finally admitted you were wrong about the schedule?" Name the move. Check: a loaded question. Why: either a yes or a no concedes that you were wrong.

Check yourself — choose one. Write two or three sentences to a friend.

  • (a) Explain why an argument can be valid while its conclusion is false.
  • (b) Explain why a fallacy and a false premise are different kinds of flaw.

Either one rehearses an explain-why skill the midterm checks.

Watch before the exam

These ten videos come from the course's vetted Week 8 pool, and every one has captions. Use them to review and to connect weeks, not to learn anything new.

Study plan

A short countdown. Count back from the day you plan to sit the midterm.

  • Two weeks out: as you finish Week 6, start a one-page list of the course's swapped pairs. Begin with argument and explanation, linked and independent, valid and sound, and strong and cogent. Add the converse and the contrapositive, necessary and sufficient, and vague and ambiguous. Add a fallacy and a false premise when Week 7 arrives.
  • One week out: as you finish Week 7, reread the topic reviews above for Weeks 3, 4, and 5. Together they hold 12 of the midterm's 25 questions, and 11 of those check deductive reasoning.
  • At the start of Week 8: take the practice exam once, cold and closed-note. Note which objectives cost you the most. Remember that it has 7 deductive-reasoning questions while the midterm has 11.
  • Three or four days before you sit it: reread the topic reviews for your two weakest objectives, and redo the matching worked examples from scratch without looking. Write every test one step per line and end it with a verdict in words.
  • Two days before: run the paired exam-prep tutorial (the copy-and-paste chatbot tutor, or its no-AI route) for active recall. Tell it which areas the practice exam exposed, and ask it to drill Weeks 3, 4, and 5.
  • The day before: retake the practice exam, explain every miss out loud, and work the self-check questions above.
  • Right before: skim the "predictable mistakes → cures" lines for all seven weeks. Then stop studying; a few slow breaths and a look at your one-page list are enough.

This guide is for review. The exam-prep tutorial and the practice exam are where you rehearse. Pulling ideas back out of memory, not rereading, is what makes them stick.

Exam format

Every one of the 25 questions counts the same, and the midterm checks your own understanding without AI. The questions come one at a time, and there is no going back, so settle each one before you move on. After you submit, Canvas shows your result.

Test-taking strategies for this material:

  • Name the test before you choose. Most questions turn on one test or one distinction: the doubt test, the cover-up test, the counterexample method, the Venn verdict, or the relevance test. Say which one is in play first.
  • Strip a deductive argument to its pattern. Replace the subject matter with P, Q, and "not", then match the pattern to the six forms.
  • Turn "only if" around before anything else. What follows "only if" goes in the then-slot.
  • Separate the link from the facts. Decide valid or invalid first, then ask whether the premises are true.
  • Treat "illustrative" as a cue. The passage was written for the question, so judge it by the course's definitions, not by what you guess about the real world.
  • Watch the trap options. Most wrong options are a swapped pair: the converse for the contrapositive, sufficient for necessary, valid for true, vague for ambiguous, or a fallacy for a false premise. If an option looks right but swaps one of those pairs, it is the trap.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com