In Evans et al.’s (1983) belief bias experiments with categorical syllogisms, participants were most likely to:

Vivid news reports that highlight the danger of serial killers, terrorist threats, and toxic substances in food may heighten public concern beyond a level that’s reasonable, due to:

Work by Daniel Oppenheimer and his colleague Adam Alter demonstrates that people are more likely to engage in slow, analytical reasoning and thinking under which of the following circumstances?

Overall, research on human decision making suggests that

In the conditional statement “If P then Q,” P is referred to as the:

People frequently overestimate the risk of rare but sensationalized health conditions (like shark attacks or terrorist attacks) while underestimating more common risks like heart disease or car accidents.

“All toads are animals” “All men are animals” Therefore, “All men are toads.” Many would evaluate this as a valid syllogism, due to its ALL ALL ALL form. This is because:

Shafir (1993) found that participants were both more likely to AWARD custody to a parent with lots of positive and negative qualities and DENY custody to that same parent. Participants’ performance on this task violates:

Consider the following premises and conclusion: Premise 1: If the company increases its marketing budget, then sales will improve. Premise 2: Sales improved. Conculsion: The company increased its marketing budget. In this set of statements, what is the conclusion? 

A conclusion in a cateogrical syllogism is logically invalid if: