List 1: Fallacies

Question 1

Slippery Slope

Answer 1

This logical fallacy is the argument that a position is not consistent or tenable because accepting the position means that the extreme of the position must also be accepted.
EX:”If we legalize marijuana, then more people will try heroin.”

Question 2

Slippery Slope

Answer 2

This logical fallacy is the argument that a position is not consistent or tenable because accepting the position means that the extreme of the position must also be accepted.
EX:”If we legalize marijuana, then more people will try heroin.”

Question 3

Straw Man

Answer 3

“Fallacy of Extension” A straw man argument attempts to counter a position by attacking a different position – usually one that is easier to counter. The arguer invents a caricature of his opponent’s position – a “straw man” – that is easily refuted, but not the position that his opponent actually holds.
EX: Mr. Marshall cuts money from band
Counter: Why doesn’t Mr. Marshall care about band?

Question 4

Straw Man

Answer 4

“Fallacy of Extension” A straw man argument attempts to counter a position by attacking a different position – usually one that is easier to counter. The arguer invents a caricature of his opponent’s position – a “straw man” – that is easily refuted, but not the position that his opponent actually holds.
EX: Mr. Marshall cuts money from band
Counter: Why doesn’t Mr. Marshall care about band?

Question 5

Red Herring

Answer 5

“Changing the Subject” A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
EX: Students should take four years of math because the math classes are pretty empty. (not relevant)

Question 6

Red Herring

Answer 6

“Changing the Subject” A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
EX: Students should take four years of math because the math classes are pretty empty. (not relevant)

Question 7

Hasty Generalization

Answer 7

This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form: Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S. The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization: X% of all observed A’s are B’’s. Therefore X% of all A’s are Bs. The fallacy is committed when not enough A’s are observed to warrant the conclusion. If enough A’s are observed then the reasoning is not fallacious.
EX: 4 or 5 people that have mullets out of 2,000 people does not mean that mullets are coming back,

Question 8

Hasty Generalization

Answer 8

This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form: Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S. The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization: X% of all observed A’s are B’’s. Therefore X% of all A’s are Bs. The fallacy is committed when not enough A’s are observed to warrant the conclusion. If enough A’s are observed then the reasoning is not fallacious.
EX: 4 or 5 people that have mullets out of 2,000 people does not mean that mullets are coming back,

Question 9

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

Answer 9

This fallacy follows the basic format of: A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related (the latin translates to “after this, therefore because of this”).
EX: I wore my purple underwear to the game on Friday and we won, so if I wear them again we will win.

Question 10

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

Answer 10

This fallacy follows the basic format of: A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related (the latin translates to “after this, therefore because of this”).
EX: I wore my purple underwear to the game on Friday and we won, so if I wear them again we will win.

Question 11

Contradictory Premises

Answer 11

(also known as a logical paradox): Establishing a premise in such a way that it contradicts another, earlier premise.
EX: If God can do anything… argument

Question 12

Contradictory Premises

Answer 12

(also known as a logical paradox): Establishing a premise in such a way that it contradicts another, earlier premise.
EX: If God can do anything… argument

Question 13

Ad Misericordiam

Answer 13

“Appeal to pity, or Appeal to sympathy” – also “The Galileo Argument” someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent’s feelings of pity or guilt. It is a specific kind of appeal to emotion.
EX: Just because Lance Armstrong overcame cancer and I love him does not mean he is a cheater.

Question 14

Ad Misericordiam

Answer 14

“Appeal to pity, or Appeal to sympathy” – also “The Galileo Argument” someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent’s feelings of pity or guilt. It is a specific kind of appeal to emotion.
EX: Just because Lance Armstrong overcame cancer and I love him does not mean he is a cheater.

Question 15

False (Bad) Analogy

Answer 15

comparison of two situations that have nothing to do with one another. The arguer claims the situations are highly relatable, but they aren’t.
EX: Lance Armstrong has cancer, therefore he will not cheat.

Question 16

False (Bad) Analogy

Answer 16

comparison of two situations that have nothing to do with one another. The arguer claims the situations are highly relatable, but they aren’t.
EX: Lance Armstrong has cancer, therefore he will not cheat.

Question 17

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact

Answer 17

This fallacy consists of offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future if circumstances or conditions were other than they actually were or are. The fallacy also involves treating hypothetical situations as if they were fact.
EX: Killing Indians was worth it because we built a successful country

Question 18

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact

Answer 18

This fallacy consists of offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future if circumstances or conditions were other than they actually were or are. The fallacy also involves treating hypothetical situations as if they were fact.
EX: Killing Indians was worth it because we built a successful country

Question 19

Poisoning the Well

Answer 19

– Discrediting a person’s claim by presenting information (true or false) about the person. Person B attacking person A before Person A can make his/her claim.
EX: Democrats bring up something about Republicans that is irrelevant to the Republican making a good president.

Question 20

Poisoning the Well

Answer 20

– Discrediting a person’s claim by presenting information (true or false) about the person. Person B attacking person A before Person A can make his/her claim.
EX: Democrats bring up something about Republicans that is irrelevant to the Republican making a good president.

Question 21

Ad Hominem

Answer 21

“to or against the man” –. An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded.
EX: The only reason you don’t believe in abortion is because you are catholic. (there could be other reasons)

Question 22

Ad Hominem

Answer 22

“to or against the man” –. An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded.
EX: The only reason you don’t believe in abortion is because you are catholic. (there could be other reasons)

Question 23

Equivocation

Answer 23

allows a key word or term in an argument to shift its meaning during the course of the argument. The result is that the conclusion of the argument is not concerned with the same thing as the premise(s).
EX: Only men are rational, Women are not men, therefore women are not rational

Question 24

Equivocation

Answer 24

allows a key word or term in an argument to shift its meaning during the course of the argument. The result is that the conclusion of the argument is not concerned with the same thing as the premise(s).
EX: Only men are rational, Women are not men, therefore women are not rational

Question 25

Circular Reasoning

Answer 25

– “the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with. The individual components of a circular argument will sometimes be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted.
EX: You can’t give me a C, I am an A student.

Question 26

Circular Reasoning

Answer 26

– “the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with. The individual components of a circular argument will sometimes be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted.
EX: You can’t give me a C, I am an A student.

Question 27

Deductive reasoning

Answer 27

also called deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements regarding what is known to reach a logically certain conclusion. Deductive reasoning involves using given true premises to reach a conclusion that is also true. Deductive reasoning contrasts with inductive reasoning in that a specific conclusion is arrived at from a general principle. If the rules and logic of deduction are followed, this procedure ensures an accurate conclusion.

Question 28

Deductive reasoning

Answer 28

also called deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements regarding what is known to reach a logically certain conclusion. Deductive reasoning involves using given true premises to reach a conclusion that is also true. Deductive reasoning contrasts with inductive reasoning in that a specific conclusion is arrived at from a general principle. If the rules and logic of deduction are followed, this procedure ensures an accurate conclusion.

Question 29

Inductive Reasoning

Answer 29

consists of inferring general principles or rules from specific facts.

Question 30

Inductive Reasoning

Answer 30

consists of inferring general principles or rules from specific facts.

Question 31

Begging the Question

Answer 31

A fallacy in which the premises includes the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assumes that the conclusion is true. Can be similar to circular reasoning in that the conclusion is part of the premise. An argument where one assumes the premise and conclusion are linked.

Question 32

Either/Or Reasoning

Answer 32

An either/or fallacy occurs when a speaker makes a claim (usually a premise in an otherwise valid deductive argument) that presents an artificial range of choices. For instance, he may suggest that there are only two choices possible, when three or more really exist. Those who use an either/or fallacy try to force their audience to accept a conclusion by presenting only two possible options, one of which is clearly more desirable.

Question 33

Non Sequitur

Answer 33

“it does not follow”- a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise.

Question 34

Dicto Simpliciter (Fallacy of accident)

Answer 34

This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case – in other words, stereotyping