CHapter 5 (irrelevant premises)

Question 1

what is a fallacy

Answer 1

a fallacy iss a faulty pattern of inference because the premises don’t provide adequate (elevant and acceptable) support for the conclusion.

Question 2

what are the two categories fallacies can be classified in

Answer 2

1) Irrelevant Premises
2) Unacceptable Premises

Question 3

What are Unacceptable Premises? and what fallacies do they involve?

Answer 3

Unacceptable Premises may be relevant to the truth of the conclusion, but are dubious for other reasons
Example:
“Random drug testing in schools reduces drug use since the regular use of the testing makes drug use less likely.”

1. Begging the Question
2. False Dilemma
3. Slippery Slope
4. Hasty Generalization
5. Faulty Analogy

Question 4

what are Irrelevant Premises? and what fallacies do they involve?

Answer 4

Irrelevant Premises have no bearing on the truth of the conclusion.

1. Genetic Fallacy
2. Appeal to the Person
3. Composition
4. Division
5. Equivocation
6. Appeal to Popularity
7. Appeal to Common Practice
8. Appeal to Tradition
9. Appeal to Ignorance
10. Appeal to Emotion
11. Red Herring
12. Straw Man

Question 5

when is a premise irrelevant

Answer 5

A premise is irrelevant to a conclusion if and only if its truth counts neither for nor against the conclusion;otherwise, it is relevant.

Question 6

What is The Genetic Fallacy?

Answer 6

Arguing or assuming that a claim is true or false solely because of its origin.

Question 7

Give an example of The Genetic Fallacy?

Answer 7

(a)The study found that 80% of women who took the drug had no recurrence of breast cancer. But that doesn’t show anything, since the study was funded by the company that makes the drug.”
(b)We should reject that proposal for solving the current welfare mess. It comes straight from the NDP!
(c) Marcus’ solution to global warming is clearly false. After all, it came to him after he had been drinking!

Question 8

Whats The Fallacy of Composition?

Answer 8

arguing or assuming that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole.

Question 9

Give an example of The Fallacy of Composition?

Answer 9

“Every player on the Blue Jays is the best in the league. Therefore, it must follow that the Blue Jays are the best team in the league.”

“Each part of this new aircraft is lightweight; therefore the whole aircraft is lightweight.”

“The atoms that make up your body are invisible. Therefore, you must be invisible!”

“The average small investor puts $2000 into the stock market each year. The average large investor puts $100,000 into it each year. Therefore, the group of large investors as a whole invest more in the stock market than the small investor group does.” [There may be many more small investors than large investors]

Question 10

Whats the Fallacy of Division?

Answer 10

arguing or assuming that what is true of the whole must be equally true of the parts.

Question 11

Give an example of the Fallacy of Division?

Answer 11

“Jane is a human being. Therefore, every cell in her body is a human being.”

“Ryerson students study many different subjects, including statistics and hotel management. John goes to Ryerson. Therefore, John must study many different subjects, including statistics and hotel management.”

“Jane’s sweater is blue, so it follows that each thread of her sweater must be blue.”

Question 12

whats The Fallacy of Appeal to the Person/ ad hominem fallacy

Answer 12

arguing that we should reject a claim solely because of the person who made it.

Question 13

What is The Fallacy of Appeal to the Person also called?

Answer 13

the ad hominem fallacy

Question 14

give an example of the ad hominem fallacy

Answer 14

“Don’t believe what Jack says about love. He’s been a reckless pot smoker ever since I met him.” (based on speaker’s character)

“Harper says he won’t change the gun laws. But you shouldn’t believe him since this goes against everything his party stands for.” (based on his circumstances)

“Naomi Klein wears expensive name-brand clothes. It follows that her concerns about excessive consumerism are just so much rubbish.” (tu quoque)

“According to supporters of the death penalty, it’s an effective deterrent against murder. But these people are not interested in deterrence at all. They want vengeance, pure and simple. They get turned on by the thought of killing the bad guys.” (based on speaker’s character)

Question 15

What are the 3 types of Ad Hominem Fallacy, explain

also note that: Sometimes the distinctions here can be quite subtle, and more than one correct answer would be acceptable

Answer 15

1) Character
2) circumstance
3) Tu Quoque

Question 16

Whats character?

Answer 16

The premise merely attacks the person’s character, instead of providing evidence for the conclusion.

“According to supporters of the death penalty, it’s an effective deterrent against murder. But these people are not interested in deterrence at all. They want vengeance, pure and simple. They get turned on by the thought of killing the bad guys.” (based on speaker’s character)

Question 17

Whats Circumstance?

Answer 17

Type of Ad Hominem Fallacy,

The premise merely points out something about the person’s circumstances, instead of providing evidence for the conclusion.

“Jose says that the political system in Cuba is perfect. But he has to say so: he’s a card-carrying communist! So you shouldn’t believe what he says about politics.”

The point is that many claims about a speaker’s character or circumstances are entirely irrelevant to whether the conclusion is true.

Question 18

Whats Tu Quoque? Provide examples

Answer 18

Type of Ad Hominem Fallacy,
the premise merely points out that the some claim is inconsistent with something else the speaker says or does, instead of providing evidence for the conclusion.

“Naomi wears expensive name-brand clothes. So everything she says about excessive consumerism is nonsense!”

“How can you tell me to not drink alcohol? I know you used to drink when you were young! Nothing you say against alcohol can be right!”

“The opposition is in no position to attack the government for increasing the deficit. When they formed the government a few years ago, they created a massive deficit that we are still coping with.”

The point is that while somebody may well be a hypocrite, this is generally irrelevant to whether what the person says is true.

Question 19

whats The Fallacy of Equivocation?

Answer 19

has Irrelevant Premises
When a word or expression is used in two different senses in an argument. Typically, one premise uses the word in one way, and another premise uses the word in a different way.

Question 20

give example of The Fallacy of Equivocation?

Answer 20

1.Only men are rational.
2.No woman is a man
.: 3. No woman is rational. (from 1,2)

1.Death is the end of life.
2.The end of life is happiness.
.:3. Happiness is death. (from 1,2)

Question 21

whats Appeal to Popularity? provide an example

Answer 21

has Irrelevant Premises
Arguing that a claim must be true simply because it is a popular belief.

example:
“Of course the war is unjustified! After all, everybody thinks so.”

Question 22

whats Appeal to Common Practice? Provide an example

Answer 22

Arguing that something should be done a certain way simply because it is commonly done that way.

example:
“Nobody has pop quizzes at university. So, there shouldn’t be any pop quizzes at university”

Question 23

whats Appeal to Tradition? give an exampleee

Answer 23

has Irrelevant Premises

Arguing that a claim must be true simply because it is part
of a tradition.

example:
“Obviously, God exists: after all, various religious traditions have said so for thousands of years!”

Question 24

whats Appeal to Ignorance? Give some examples

Answer 24

has Irrelevant Premises

An argument which states or assumes a claim like this:
We don’t know that P is true, therefore P is false.
or

We don’t know that P is false, therefore P is true.

examples;
“No one has shown that ghosts are real, so they must not exist.”

“God must exist, since science hasn’t proven otherwise.”

“I believe in astrology and always read my horoscope. I can’t actually prove that it is true, but nobody can disprove it!

Question 25

whatd Appeal to Emotion? give some examples

Answer 25

has Irrelevant Premises

This fallacy occurs when emotions (guilt, anger, pity, fear, etc.) are appealed to, instead of relevant reasons, in an argument.

examples:
“You should judge this person innocent. After all, she’s a poor single mother who didn’t have many chances in life, and if you find her guilty, her life will be ruined”

“I deserve a better grade than D on my paper. My parents just got a divorce. If they see that I got a D, they will just blame each other, and the fighting will start all over again. Give me a break!”

“The new Mustang is the best car on the road. Picture the admiring glances you’ll get when you take a cruise in your Mustang through town. Imagine the power and speed!”

Question 26

whats “Red Herring”? Give some examples of this fallacy

Answer 26

has Irrelevant Premises

This fallacy occurs when irrelevant factors are introduced during an argument.

Sometimes this is deliberate; other times it’s inadvertent or accidental.

The solution is to bring the discussion back to topics/issues that are relevant.

examples:
“The federal government should bring in mandatory minimum sentences for a greater range of serious crimes. I’m telling you, crime is a terrible thing when it happens to you. It causes death, pain, and fear. And I wouldn’t want to wish these things on anyone!”

“A lot of people think that football players are stupid and boorish. That’s just false! You should have seen the fantastic game our team played last week. They scored three touchdowns before halftime”

Question 27

whats Straw Man? provide some examples

Answer 27

has Irrelevant Premises

This fallacy occurs when an argument attacks a misrepresentation (e.g.distortion, oversimplification) of a position, instead of the position itself.

The misrepresentation is irrelevant to the worth of the position itself, and attacking the misrepresentation is a violation of the Principle of Charity i.e. When someone’s meaning is unclear, we should attempt to interpret it in a way that makes sense.

examples:
“Marcus says that students who cheat on exams should not automatically be expelled from school. But it’s ridiculous to insist that students should never be punished for cheating.”

“People who opposed the NAFTA probably just wanted Canada to banish Quebec. But we want Quebec to stay in Canada.”

“We should have conscription. People don’t want to enter the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they should realize that there are more important things than convenience.”