Logical Fallacies Quiz

A loaded or complex question fallacy consists of formulating a question in a way that presupposes that a definite answer has already been given to some other, unasked question. For example, "Where will you be going to college next year?" presupposes the person will be going to college.

A leading question fallacy consists of 'planting' a proposed answer to a question at issue by the manner in which the question is asked. This means that the question is designed to suggest a particular answer. For example, in a legal setting, a lawyer for the defense might ask, "You did plan to return the money that you borrowed from the cash drawer, did you not?" This question leads the witness to affirm that they planned to return the money, potentially negating the idea that they embezzled it.

An apriorism fallacy consists of refusing to look at any evidence that might count against one's claim or assumption. This fallacy also manifests as being unwilling or unable to specify any conceivable evidence that might possibly count against one's claim. For example, someone might say 'I couldn't care less what is in your biology textbook. I know that I didn't come from some monkey or lower form of life or whatever you call it.' They refuse to consider evidence that contradicts their belief about human origins.

<p>A question-begging definition fallacy occurs when an argument attempts to establish an irrefutable position by using a questionable definition. For example, someone might argue that 'All good people believe in God,' and then define 'good people' as those who believe in God. This definition creates a circular argument where the conclusion is already embedded in the definition.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>To effectively attack a loaded or complex question fallacy, point out the flaw in the question. State clearly that the question presupposes an answer to another unrelated question. You might also rephrase the question to remove the problematic presupposition and focus on the core issue being debated.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The most common technique for attacking a leading question fallacy is simply pointing it out. Emphasize that the question is designed to suggest a particular answer, and that it is not a fair or unbiased way to ask the question. You might also rephrase the question in a more neutral way, removing the leading element.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>To determine whether your opponent is committing an apriorism fallacy, ask them what kind of evidence, if it were presented, might seriously weaken their claim. If they are unable to specify any conceivable evidence that would challenge their belief, they are likely committing this fallacy.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A question-begging definition fallacy undermines an argument by using a definition that already assumes the conclusion of the argument. This creates a circular logic where the conclusion is used to justify the premise, making the argument tautological and unprovable. It essentially avoids any real debate by predefining the terms in a way that ensures its own validity.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The critics are falsely assuming that since the politician switched parties, he was never a true Democrat. This is an error in definition, since there is no objective definition of what constitutes a 'true-blue' Democrat. This fallacy is known as 'Attacking the definition'.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The statement commits the fallacy of 'Causal Oversimplification'. This is because it attributes the drop in SAT scores solely to the decreased time spent reading, ignoring other potential contributing factors. This oversimplifies the complex issue of declining SAT scores and ignores other possible causes.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The &quot;Post Hoc Fallacy&quot; assumes that because one event happens after another, the first event caused the second. For example, &quot;Every time I wear my lucky socks, my team wins.&quot; This assumes that wearing the lucky socks is the reason for the win, ignoring other potential factors.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The &quot;Confusion of Cause and Effect&quot; fallacy occurs when we mistakenly identify the cause of an event as its effect, or vice versa. We often fail to recognize that the two events may be interconnected and influence each other reciprocally. For example, if a student consistently receives high grades and is praised by the teacher, we might assume this praise is the sole reason for their good performance. However, it's possible the student's high grades <em>lead</em> to the praise, rather than the other way around.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The statement incorrectly assumes that Phillip is the teacher's pet <em>because</em> he makes good grades and cooperates. It's more likely that he makes good grades and cooperates <em>because</em> he is the teacher's pet. The statement confuses the effect (being the teacher's pet) with the cause (good grades and cooperation).</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The more probable explanation is that Phillip is the teacher's pet because he makes good grades and cooperates. It's more likely that his behavior contributes to his status as the teacher's pet, rather than the other way around.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>To effectively attack the &quot;Causal Oversimplification&quot; fallacy, one should point out the oversimplified explanation and suggest additional factors that might contribute to the event or phenomenon. It's essential to demonstrate that the argument has neglected crucial elements and to present a more comprehensive and nuanced view of the cause-and-effect relationship.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>If a friend wins the lottery after buying a new pair of shoes, they might believe that the shoes brought them luck. This is incorrect because there is no causal relationship between buying a new pair of shoes and winning the lottery. The win was purely a chance event, not influenced by the new shoes.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The Domino Fallacy assumes that one event will inevitably lead to a chain reaction of other events, without sufficient evidence. For example, someone might argue that if they get a bad grade on one test, it will lead to them failing the class, then dropping out of school, and ultimately ending up homeless. This argument is flawed because it assumes a direct causal link between each event without considering other factors that might influence the outcome.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The Gambler's Fallacy is the belief that past chance events influence the probability of future events. For example, someone might think that because a coin landed on heads five times in a row, it's more likely to land on tails next time. It's difficult to counter because even if you show someone the probability is still 50%, they may still believe their experience makes it more likely to land on tails.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>This statement is flawed because it assumes a causal relationship between being the teacher's pet and good behavior. It's possible that Phillip's good behavior is the reason he's the teacher's pet, or that both factors are influenced by other variables, like the teacher's personal preference or Phillip's natural disposition.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A common Domino Fallacy during the Cold War was the belief that if one country fell to communism, neighboring countries would fall as well, leading to global communist domination. This argument was based on the assumption that communism would inevitably spread without considering the complexities of political and social factors involved.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The Gambler's Fallacy can be applied to the concept of 'hot streaks' in sports. Athletes or teams might believe that because they have been performing well recently, they are more likely to continue performing well in the future. They mistakenly attribute success to a streak rather than to skill, luck, or other factors, leading to the fallacy of assuming past performance predicts future success.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The fallacy of 'Poisoning the Well' occurs when someone rejects an argument or point of view solely based on the person making it, due to personal circumstances, character flaws, or motivations. This fallacy discredits the source before any consideration of the argument's merit.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>&quot;You can’t trust anything that politician says, they’re always lying!&quot;</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The 'Fallacy of Composition' is committed when someone assumes that what is true of the individual parts of something must also be true of the whole. This fallacy confuses properties of individual components with properties of the whole.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>A company has many skilled employees, each of whom is highly intelligent. Therefore, the company as a whole must be incredibly innovative.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>'Circular Reasoning' is a type of fallacy where the conclusion is already assumed to be true as part of the premises. This creates a loop where the argument effectively proves itself without any real evidence.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>The Bible is true because it is the word of God, and we know it is the word of God because the Bible says so.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>To combat this fallacy, one should point out the difference in properties between individual parts and the whole. It's necessary to demonstrate how the characteristics of the parts don't automatically translate to the overall entity.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>To effectively counter 'Circular Reasoning', one should expose the assumption of the conclusion within the premises. It is vital to demonstrate that the argument relies solely on its own assertion for support, lacking any external evidence.</p> Signup and view all the answers

A fallacy where a question presupposes an answer to another unasked question.

A fallacy that plants a proposed answer through the way a question is asked.

A fallacy of ignoring evidence against one's claim or assumption.

A fallacy establishing an irrefutable argument through a questionable definition.

"Where will you be going to college next year?" presupposes a choice has been made.

"You did plan to return the money, did you not?" plants a presumption.

"I couldn't care less what your biology book says; I know I didn't evolve from monkeys."

Point out a fallacy to demonstrate its weaknesses in argumentation.

Oversimplifying causal factors of an event or series of events.

Children spend hours on screens; therefore, SAT scores drop.

Assuming event B is caused by event A simply because B follows A.

Buying new shoes helped my soccer team win.

Mistaking the cause for the effect or vice versa.

Phillip does well in school because he is a teacher's pet.

Question causal explanations and suggest other factors.

Definitional claims are based on definitions; empirical claims are based on observation or evidence.

Rejecting a claim based on the speaker's circumstances or motives.

Claiming someone's opinion is invalid due to their identity, like gender.

Assuming what is true for parts is true for the whole.

Assuming a couple is perfect just because both individuals are great.

Arguing where the premises assume the conclusion is true.

Claiming one can't receive a C because they are an A student, which assumes the A status.

Calling out the undermining tactic used against an argument.

Drawing attention to the conclusion being assumed within premises.

A relationship where two events influence each other, like Phillip's behavior and being teacher's pet.

Assuming a single action will lead to a series of inevitable consequences without evidence.

The belief that losing Vietnam would lead to losing all of Southeast Asia.

Belief that past outcomes affect the probability of a future independent event.

Challenging a fallacy is hard because belief often persists despite counterarguments.