Fallacy

Question 1

Fallacies

Answer 1

defects that weaken arguments

Question 2

Hasty generalization

Answer 2

making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate.

Question 3

Missing the point

Answer 3

premises of an argument support a particular conclusion-but not the one the arguer actually draws.

Question 4

Post hoc (false cause)

Answer 4

Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B.

Question 5

Slippery Slope

Answer 5

arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction will take place, but there’s not really enough evidence for that assumption.

Question 6

Weak Analogy

Answer 6

If the two things being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects.

Question 7

Appeal to authority

Answer 7

attempting to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert.

Question 8

Ad populum

Answer 8

arguer takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to get the audience to accept his or her argument.

Question 9

Ad hominem and tu quoque

Answer 9

conclusion in these arguments is usually “You shouldn’t believe So-and-So is argument.”

Question 10

Appeal to Pity

Answer 10

arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.

Question 11

Appeal to ignorance

Answer 11

arguer basically says, “Look, there’s no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue.”

Question 12

Straw man

Answer 12

arguer sets up a weak version of the opponent’s position and tries to score points by knocking it down.

Question 13

Red Herring

Answer 13

Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what’s really at stake.

Question 14

False dichotomy

Answer 14

arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices.

Question 15

Fallacies of Relevance

Answer 15

appeal to evidence or examples that are not relevant to the argument at hand.

Question 16

Appeal to Force

Answer 16

uses force, or threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion.

Question 17

Genetic Fallacy

Answer 17

the claim that an idea, product, or person must be untrustworthy because of its racial, geographic, or ethnic origin.

Question 18

Personal Attack

Answer 18

attacking or praising the people who make an argument rather than discussing the argument itself.

Question 19

Subcategory of Personal Attack: Abusive

Answer 19

argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists, Christians, Muslims, communists, capitalists, the John Birch Society, Catholics, anti-Catholics, racists, anti-racists, feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious.

Question 20

Subcategory of Personal Attack: Circumstantial

Answer 20

To argue that an opponent should accept or reject an argument because of circumstances in his or her life.

Question 21

Argumentum ad Populum

Answer 21

using an appeal to popular assent

Question 22

Bandwagon Approach

Answer 22

A basic approach to Argumentum ad Populum. Asserts that since the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action, the argument must be true.

Question 23

Patriotic Approach

Answer 23

asserts that a certain stance is true or correct because it is somehow patriotic.

Question 24

Snob Approach

Answer 24

doesn’t assert “everybody is doing it”, but rather that “all the best people are doing it.”

Question 25

Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum Ad Traditio)

Answer 25

asserts that a premise must be true because people have always believed it or done it.

Question 26

Appeal to Improper Authority (Argumentum Ad Verecendium)

Answer 26

an appeal to an improper authority that may not be reliable.

Question 27

Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam)

Answer 27

Emotional appeal concerning what should be a logical issue during a debate.

Question 28

Argument from Adverse Consequences

Answer 28

Asserting that an argument must be false because the implications of it being true would create negative results.

Question 29

Argument from Personal Incredulity

Answer 29

Asserting that opponent’s argument must be false because you personally don’t understand it or can’t follow its technicalities.