INTRO TO PSYCH (logical fallacies)

Question 1

What are the basic components of an argument?

Answer 1

• premises and conclusions
• premises are the reasons/evidence provided to support the conclusion

Question 2

Define Deductive Reasoning

Answer 2

• the process of drawing deductive inferences where the conclusion logically follows from its premises
• It is certain if the premises are correct

Question 3

Provide an example of Deductive Reasoning

Answer 3

Premise 1: All men are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal

Question 4

What is Inductive Reasoning?

Answer 4

• repeated observations - we make generalisations - form probable conclusion
• It involves making generalizations based on specific observations

Question 5

Explain the difference between Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

Answer 5

• Deductive reasoning provides a certain conclusion if the premises are correct (certainity)
• while inductive reasoning offers a probable conclusion based on available evidence (probability)

Question 6

What is the “Appeal to Authority” fallacy? Provide an example

Answer 6

Definition: It assumes that an expert or authority’s opinion must be true - disregarding other factors that may influence their stance

Premise 1: Rickert Ploughman is an experienced behavioural geneticist
Premise 2: He does not believe that epigenetic effects are real
Conclusion: Therefore, epigenetic effects do not exist

Question 7

What is the logical fallacy in which a conclusion is drawn based on insufficient premises?

Answer 7

Logical Fallacy: Scarcity of Premises

Question 8

What is the problem with the following argument?
Premise 1: The sample size of the study is low.
Conclusion: Therefore, its results are unreliable.

Answer 8

• the conclusion is drawn solely from the premise that the sample size of the study is low
• there is a lack of additional premises to support the conclusion and establish its logical validity

Question 9

What is the missing premise that could render the conclusion logically true in this example:
Premise 1: The sample size of the study is low.
Conclusion: Therefore, its results are unreliable

Answer 9

• as this phenomenon can be highly variable, a low sample size could mean only high scorers have been recruited - resulting in a skewed dataset

Question 10

Why can the Scarcity of Premises fallacy be criticized as assuming knowledge of the reader?

Answer 10

• assuming knowledge of the reader
• argument relies on the reader to fill in the missing premises that aren’t explicitly stated

Question 11

What should be considered when constructing an argument to avoid the Scarcity of Premises fallacy?

Answer 11

• provide sufficient and relevant premises to support the conclusion
• Clear and explicit reasoning is necessary to make the argument valid and compelling

Question 12

What is the “Ad Populum” (Appeal to popularity) fallacy? Provide an example

Answer 12

• relies on the common acceptance of an idea to support the conclusion
• assumes that just because something is popular, it is automatically considered right

Premise 1: Everyone breaks the speed limit.
Premise 2: If everyone does it, it must be okay.
Conclusion: Therefore, speeding should be legalized.

Question 13

What is the “Straw man” fallacy? Provide an example

Answer 13

misrepresenting argument to make it easier to refute

“Let’s go to the movies.”
“No, I’d rather not today”
“You never want to have fun”

• setting up a weak opposition to the theory by attributing it with an extreme & inaccurate claim, the argument creates a strawman

Question 14

What is the “False dichotomy” fallacy? Provide an example

Answer 14

• presents only two possible explanations when there could be other alternatives/combination of both explanations
• oversimplifies the choices

“Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” - George Bush

i.e….

“Either X is true or Y is true”
“X is not true”
“So Y must be true

Question 15

What is the “Hasty Generalization” fallacy? Provide an example

Answer 15

• draws a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence, failing to consider other relevant factors

Premise 1: Alcohol consumption has been argued to improve teaching performance
Premise 2: Two of my staff self-reported that students were more receptive to teaching after they’d had a pint with lunch
Conclusion: All teachers should be compelled to have a drink before a class

Question 16

Define “Affirming the consequent” fallacy. Provide an example

Answer 16

• when a true conditional statement is incorrectly inferred to be true if its consequent is true, even though that may not be the case

Premise 1: If you are drinking a beer, then you must minimally be 18
Premise 2: She is drinking a beer
Conclusion: Therefore, she must be over 18

Question 17

Define “Denying the antecedent” fallacy. Provide an example

Answer 17

• fallacy occurs when the consequent of a conditional statement is inferred to be false because its antecedent is false

Premise 1: If you are drinking a beer, then you must minimally be 18.
Premise 2: She isn’t drinking a beer.
Conclusion: Therefore, she must be under 18.

Question 18

Explain the “Coincidental Correlation” fallacy. Provide an Example

Answer 18

• assumes causation based on the coincidence of two events occurring together
• correlation does not equal causation
• a 3rd variable may be causing both, the events may co-occur by chances etc.

Premise 1: The cockerel crowed
Premise 2: 1 minute later, the sun rose
Conclusion: The sun rises because the cockerel crows.

Question 19

Describe the “Running round in circles” fallacy. Provide an example

Answer 19

• occurs when an argument’s premises require the conclusion to be true to stand - creating a circular reasoning without solid evidence

Premise 1: I have psychic power
Premise 2: I know because my aunt – another psychic - told me
Premise 3: Only psychics can tell if you’re a psychic
Premise 4: How do I know my aunt’s a psychic?
Conclusion: As I am a psychic

(issue here:
- Premise 4 relies on the conclusion to be true to hold
- Premise 2 requires both premise 4 and the conclusion to be true to hold)