مغالطات و تفکر نقادانه قسمت 2

Question 1

What is the definition of Special Pleading?

Answer 1

It is an exception to a general rule without justification.

Question 2

What is an example of Special Pleading?

Answer 2

“My son is an exception” in a court case.

Question 3

What is the definition of Circular Reasoning?

Answer 3

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise to support itself, creating a loop with no independent evidence. It is when an argument loops back to itself.

Question 4

What is the definition of the No True Scotsman fallacy?

Answer 4

It is a general claim about a group, modified when counterexamples are presented.

Question 5

What is an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy?

Answer 5

“Scotsmen don’t commit crimes, but I know a Scotsman who does, so he’s not a true Scotsman.”

Question 6

What is the definition of Cherry Picking?

Answer 6

Selective presentation of evidence.

Question 7

What is an example of Cherry Picking?

Answer 7

Only presenting data that supports a belief while ignoring contrary evidence.

Question 8

What is the definition of Wishful Thinking?

Answer 8

When the desire for something to be true replaces evidence.

Question 9

What is an example of Wishful Thinking?

Answer 9

“I hope for peace, therefore peace will happen.”

Question 10

What is the definition of Willful Ignorance?

Answer 10

Refusal to change beliefs despite contradictory evidence.

Question 11

What is an example of Willful Ignorance?

Answer 11

Clinging to beliefs without accepting new information.

Question 12

Why is it important to recognize fallacies?

Answer 12

To improve discussion and understanding.

Question 13

Why is circular reasoning considered a fallacy?

Answer 13

Because it doesn’t provide new or independent evidence to support the conclusion, making the argument invalid.

Question 14

What is an example of circular reasoning?

Answer 14

The Bible is true because it is the word of God, and we know God exists because the Bible says so.”

Question 15

How can you identify circular reasoning in an argument?

Answer 15

Look for cases where the conclusion is repeated or assumed in the premises, with no external evidence provided.

Question 16

Can circular reasoning ever be persuasive?

Answer 16

Yes, it can seem persuasive to those who already believe the conclusion, but it is logically flawed.

Question 17

How can you avoid using circular reasoning in your arguments?

Answer 17

Provide independent evidence for your claims rather than assuming the conclusion as part of your reasoning.

Question 18

how to break someones Circular Reasoning?

Answer 18

Challenge each premise by asking “Why is this true?” until you reach a point where the reasoning is based on solid evidence.

for example:
“I’m trustworthy because I always tell the truth, and you can trust me because I’m trustworthy.”

ask for independent prove that shows you the person is trustworthy, for example he keeped his promise when it cost he or she a great deal. or he or she did not lie even it could of cost them a lot.

Question 19

What is the Special Pleading Fallacy?

Answer 19

It’s when someone applies a rule to others but makes an unjustified exception for themselves or their argument.

Question 20

Why is Special Pleading a fallacy?

Answer 20

Because it introduces an arbitrary exception without valid reasoning, undermining the fairness or consistency of the argument.

Question 21

What is an example of Special Pleading?

Answer 21

Everyone should follow the speed limit, but I’m allowed to speed because I’m late.

Question 22

How can you identify Special Pleading?

Answer 22

Look for cases where someone creates an exception to a rule without a valid, logical reason.

Question 23

What is a non-fallacious way to justify an exception?

Answer 23

Provide evidence or reasoning that demonstrates why the exception is logically or morally justified.

Question 24

How can you avoid Special Pleading?

Answer 24

Apply the same rules consistently to all parties, including yourself, unless there is a valid and well-supported reason for an exception.

Question 25

What is the No True Scotsman Fallacy?

Answer 25

It’s when someone redefines a group or category to exclude counterexamples that challenge their claim.

Question 26

Why is the No True Scotsman Fallacy problematic?

Answer 26

Because it avoids addressing valid counterexamples by arbitrarily redefining the group.

Question 27

What is an example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy?

Answer 27

“No true Scotsman puts sugar in their porridge,” dismissing a counterexample of a Scotsman who does.

Question 28

How can you identify the No True Scotsman Fallacy?

Answer 28

Look for cases where someone dismisses a counterexample by saying, “No true [group member] would do that.”

Question 29

How can you avoid the No True Scotsman Fallacy?

Answer 29

Accept counterexamples as valid and refine your argument to address them instead of redefining the group.

Question 30

What’s the difference between the No True Scotsman Fallacy and a valid exception?

Answer 30

A valid exception is based on clear, consistent criteria, while the fallacy arbitrarily redefines the group to dismiss inconvenient examples.

Question 31

What is the Cherry Picking Fallacy?

Answer 31

It’s when someone selectively presents evidence that supports their argument while ignoring evidence that contradicts it.

Question 32

Why is Cherry Picking a fallacy?

Answer 32

Because it creates a biased or incomplete picture of the situation, leading to misleading conclusions.

Question 33

What is an example of Cherry Picking?

Answer 33

“Crime is decreasing because one neighborhood had a 20% drop,” ignoring increases in other neighborhoods.

Question 34

How can you identify Cherry Picking?

Answer 34

Look for evidence that is selectively chosen to support a claim while ignoring contradictory evidence.

Question 35

How can you avoid Cherry Picking?

Answer 35

Consider all relevant evidence, both supporting and contradicting your argument, before drawing conclusions.

Question 36

What’s the difference between Cherry Picking and focusing on relevant evidence?

Answer 36

Cherry Picking involves ignoring contradictory evidence, while focusing on relevant evidence considers the full context of the argument.

Question 37

What is the Wishful Thinking Fallacy?

Answer 37

It’s when someone believes something is true or false simply because they want it to be that way, rather than basing it on evidence or logic.

Question 38

Why is Wishful Thinking a fallacy?

Answer 38

Because it replaces critical thinking with emotional desire, leading to beliefs that may not align with reality.

Question 39

What is an example of Wishful Thinking?

Answer 39

“I don’t need to study for the exam because I know I’ll do well,” without any evidence or preparation.

Question 40

How can you identify Wishful Thinking?

Answer 40

Look for beliefs that are based on hope, fear, or desire instead of evidence or rationality.

Question 41

How can you avoid Wishful Thinking?

Answer 41

Focus on evidence and logic, even if the reality is uncomfortable or doesn’t align with your desires.

Question 42

What’s the difference between optimism and Wishful Thinking?

Answer 42

Optimism is hoping for the best while acknowledging reality, whereas Wishful Thinking ignores reality in favor of what you want to believe.

Question 43

A friend says,
“The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.”

Which fallacy is this, and why?

Answer 43

This is the Circular Reasoning Fallacy.

This is circular reasoning because the argument assumes what it is trying to prove. The statement uses the Bible’s claim as evidence for its own truth without providing independent support.

Question 44

A person argues, “I know I said everyone has to follow the rules, but I shouldn’t get a parking ticket because I was running late to an important meeting.”

Which fallacy is this, and why?

Answer 44

This is The Special Pleading Fallacy.

This is special pleading because the person is applying a double standard by making an exception for themselves without justifying why the rules shouldn’t apply to them.

Question 45

Person A says, “No Scotsman would ever put sugar on his porridge.”
Person B replies, “But my uncle is Scottish, and he puts sugar on his porridge.”

Which fallacy is this, and why?

Answer 45

This is the No True Scotsman Fallacy

This is the No True Scotsman fallacy because Person A redefines the category of “Scotsman” to exclude counterexamples, instead of addressing the evidence presented.

Question 46

A company claims their product is the best because “90% of customers gave it a 5-star review,” but they fail to mention that the survey only included their most loyal customers.

Which fallacy is this, and why?

Answer 46

This is the Cherry Picking Fallacy

This is cherry picking because the company selectively presents only favorable evidence while ignoring data that might contradict their claim.

Question 47

Someone says, “I believe I will win the lottery because I really need the money, and it would make my life so much better.”

Which fallacy is this, and why?

Answer 47

This is the Wishful Thinking Fallacy.

This is wishful thinking because the person is assuming something is true or likely to happen simply because they want it to be, without any evidence to support the claim.