UDEE Critical Thinking 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A defense attorney argues: 'My client cannot be the thief because honest people don't steal.' This argument is flawed because:
- Thieves can appear honest, making the premise unfalsifiable as applied (Correct answer)
- The attorney should not represent criminals
- All attorneys commit logical fallacies
- The statement is legally admissible regardless of logic
Correct answer: Thieves can appear honest, making the premise unfalsifiable as applied
The argument is circular — it assumes the client is honest without evidence, then uses that assumption to disprove the charge.
Question 2: Which of the following best describes 'confirmation bias' in the context of law enforcement?
- Confirming a witness statement with physical evidence
- Seeking only evidence that supports a pre-existing theory while ignoring contradicting evidence (Correct answer)
- Requiring multiple confirmations before making an arrest
- Verifying an informant's identity before acting on a tip
Correct answer: Seeking only evidence that supports a pre-existing theory while ignoring contradicting evidence
Confirmation bias leads investigators to selectively gather and interpret evidence in ways that validate their initial suspicion.
Question 3: An officer reads: 'In cities where officers wear body cameras, complaints against police dropped by 30%.' Which conclusion is best supported?
- Body cameras always prevent misconduct
- There is an association between body camera use and fewer complaints, but causation is not established (Correct answer)
- Officers without cameras commit 30% more misconduct
- Body cameras are the single most effective policing reform
Correct answer: There is an association between body camera use and fewer complaints, but causation is not established
Statistical correlations establish association, not causation; other factors may explain the decline in complaints.
Question 4: A suspect says: 'I was home all night.' An alibi witness confirms this. The officer should:
- Accept the alibi as proven and clear the suspect
- Charge both the suspect and witness with obstruction
- Verify the alibi with additional independent evidence before excluding the suspect (Correct answer)
- Disregard the alibi because suspects always lie
Correct answer: Verify the alibi with additional independent evidence before excluding the suspect
Alibi witnesses may be biased or mistaken; corroborating evidence such as electronic records or neutral witnesses strengthens reliability.
Question 5: Which type of reasoning is used when an officer draws a general conclusion from multiple specific incidents?
- Deductive reasoning
- Abductive reasoning
- Inductive reasoning (Correct answer)
- Circular reasoning
Correct answer: Inductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning builds general conclusions from specific observations, though those conclusions are probabilistic rather than certain.
Question 6: An officer is told: 'All of the suspects in this case have prior records.' She then assumes all people with prior records are suspects in this case. This error is known as:
- Valid deduction
- Affirming the consequent (converse error) (Correct answer)
- Modus ponens
- Sound reasoning
Correct answer: Affirming the consequent (converse error)
Affirming the consequent incorrectly reverses a conditional statement — 'all A are B' does not mean 'all B are A.'
Question 7: Which approach best demonstrates critical evaluation of a witness account?
- Accepting the account because the witness appeared calm
- Rejecting the account because the witness is related to the victim
- Assessing the account against physical evidence, lighting conditions, and witness vantage point (Correct answer)
- Recording the account verbatim without analysis
Correct answer: Assessing the account against physical evidence, lighting conditions, and witness vantage point
Critical evaluation requires cross-referencing testimonial evidence with physical and environmental factors that affect reliability.
UDEE Critical Thinking 4
A defense attorney argues: 'My client cannot be the thief because honest people don't steal.' This argument is flawed because: