L04 - Fallacies

Question 1

Ad Hominem

Answer 1

Choosing to attack the person making the argument rather than addressing the points raised in the argument itself.

Question 2

Affirming the Consequent

Answer 2

An invalid argument in the form ‘If P then Q (premise 1). Q (premise 2). Therefore, P (conclusion)’. This invalid form is often confused with the valid form Modus Ponens.

Question 3

Appeal to Popular Opinion

Answer 3

An evidential fallacy that misconstrues the significance of the fact that many people hold some belief.

Question 4

Appeal from Ignorance

Answer 4

An evidential fallacy that misconstrues the significance of the fact that there is no evidence for a particular claim.

Question 5

Begging the Question

Answer 5

A circular argument, one which assumes the truth of what it purports to prove.

Question 6

Defeasibility

Answer 6

The quality of ampliative reasoning that leaves it open to amendment in light of new information.

Question 7

Denying the Antecedent

Answer 7

An invalid argument in the form ‘If P then Q (premise 1). It is not the case that P (premise 2). Therefore, it is not the case that Q (conclusion).’ This invalid form is often confused with the valid form Modus Tollens.

Question 8

Equivocation

Answer 8

A fallacy of equivocation conceals the invalidity of an argument through the use of a single expression in two (or more) different ways. A way of speaking that is intentionally not clear and is confusing to other people, especially to hide the truth.

Question 9

Evidential Fallacy

Answer 9

An argument that fails to show its conclusion to be reasonably likely because the state of information is too weak to support the conclusion.

Question 10

Fallacy

Answer 10

A method of reasoning that is unreliable and which results in faulty argumentation. This result can be intended by the arguer or it can be accidental.

Question 11

False Dichotomy

Answer 11

The fallacy of suggesting that there are only two options when, in fact, other options may exist.

Question 12

Genetic Fallacy

Answer 12

Basing an argument on irrelevant facts about the origin of a claim rather than on the evidence for or against it.

Question 13

Implicit Claim

Answer 13

An implicit claim is a claim that is either presupposed or implied, but without being explicitly stated.

Question 14

Logical Fallacy

Answer 14

An argument that is structurally deficient because its premises, if true, do not suffice to determine the truth of its conclusion. A logical fallacy is deductively invalid.

Question 15

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Answer 15

The superstitious or magical line of thinking according to which if one thing happened after another, then it happens because of it.

Question 16

Procedural (or pragmatic) Fallacy

Answer 16

Argumentative interventions that jeopardize reasoning either by distracting the reasoners from the issues being reasoned about or by imperiling the conditions that make reasoning possible.

Question 17

Quantifier scope (or shift) Fallacy

Answer 17

A mistaken inference that results from failure to attend to order of quantifiers. A very common instance is that of moving from a claim of the form ‘Every X has a related Y’ to one of the form ‘There is some Y related to every X’.

Question 18

Red Herring

Answer 18

An argumentative intervention that leads the discussion away from the issue.

Question 19

Straw Man Fallacy

Answer 19

Failing to apply the good practice of charity in interpreting an opposing viewpoint; misrepresenting an argument or a view in order to refute a dumbed-down version of it.