fallacies

Question 1

unwarranted premise

Answer 1

the premise is not true (e.g. it is not a well-known fact that elephants love to ride tricycles)

Question 2

begging the question/circular reasoning

Answer 2

relies on an implicit premise (enthymeme) and the reasoning ends up where it started (e.g. fetuses are already fully separate bodies that happen to be in mother’s body)

Question 3

complex question

Answer 3

yes or no: both imply something (e.g. have you stoped abusing drugs yet?)

Question 4

black & white thinking/false dichotomy

Answer 4

you are given two options: what was trump supposed to do- letting biden get away with stealing the election or encourage patriotic citizens to rise up?

Question 5

straw man

Answer 5

occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion as if that is really the claim the first person is making.

e.g. (by mandating abortions, the human race will die out withing a single generation.)

Question 6

obscurantism

Answer 6

sophisticated words; usually dishonest in over-selling the strengths of a postion

Question 7

equivocation

Answer 7

semantic of lexical ambiguity (when the word has one or more meanings)
e.g. nothing is better than perfect bliss; but a ham sandwich is better that nothing=> a ham sandwich is better that perfect bliss

Question 8

amphiboly

Answer 8

ambiguity arises from grammar

Question 9

literalism

Answer 9

taking things literally

Question 10

division

Answer 10

illicitly transferring a property of a whole to its parts
e.g. about 14% of us is black, biden is black => biden is black

Question 11

composition

Answer 11

illicitly transferring property of the part to the whole
e.g. atoms are too small to see w naked eye; biden is made out of atoms=> biden is too small to be seen w naked eye.

Question 12

vagueness

Answer 12

doesn’t offer specific details
e.g. go out and play a game with 5-year old causing (you can play poker or russian roulette)

Question 13

denying the antecedent

Answer 13

the if-clause is antecedent; the main clause is consequent
e.g. (if there is no fire => there is no oxygen)

Question 14

affirming the consequent

Answer 14

if there is oxygen, there is fire

Question 15

disjunctive fallacy

Answer 15

two different interpretations of the word ‘or’
inclusive: both or’s are correct
exclusive: one or the other but not both

Question 16

not hopping

Answer 16

not hops around
e.g. not all birds can fly (T)
all birds cannot fly (F)

Question 17

Quantifies swapping

Answer 17

contains words like some and all that provide certain kinds of answers to the question of how many. the issue arises when it substitutes individual names
e.g. everybody loves somebody
somebody is loved by everybody

Question 18

hasty generalization

Answer 18

generalizing from a sample size that is too small or it is unrepresentative;

Question 19

no true Scotsman

Answer 19

does not represent the sample

Question 20

accident

Answer 20

misapplication of a general rule to a specific case

Question 21

appeal to ignorance

Answer 21

the absence of proof is taken as a positive proof of absence (you cannot find rhinoceros in room, you cannot find god)

Question 22

false cause

Answer 22

temporal relation mistaken for a causal one (before and after)

Question 23

slippery slope

Answer 23

this leads to that which leads to another=> terrible outcome

Question 24

missing the point

Answer 24

a. no conclusion
b. wrong conclusion
c. misinterpreting the premise

Question 25

weak analogy

Answer 25

a is like b
b has the property of c
a has the property of c too

Question 26

red herring

Answer 26

change subject to derail the reasoning, leading astray; the question discussed previously will be lost

Question 27

ad hominem

Answer 27

change of subject and make it personal

Question 28

ad hominem abusive

Answer 28

attacks the other person to make a premise

Question 29

ad hominem circumstantial

Answer 29

discounting the arguer by focusing on their motives

Question 30

ad hominem tu quoque

Answer 30

calling the arguer out for not following what they preach

Question 31

appeal to people (restricted appeal)

Answer 31

a specific group that will endorse your answer

Question 32

appeal to people (exclusive)

Answer 32

this is not for everyone

Question 33

appeal to illegitimate authority

Answer 33

the authority that you appeal to is not knowledgeable in the field

Question 34

appeal to emotions

Answer 34

appeals to pity, fear, pride etc

Question 35

failure to engage

Answer 35

filibustering or turning a deaf ear

Question 36

ad baculum

Answer 36

appeal to violence, something bad will happen if you don’t do what I say