Logic Fallacies Quiz

Front 1

appeal to force

Back 1

threatens harm if listener does not accept conclusion

Front 2

appeal to pity

Back 2

supports conclusion by arousing pity

Front 3

appeal to people- direct approach

Back 3

get everyone together; mob mentality

Front 4

appeal to people- indirect approach

Back 4

singles one member of the crowd out
1. bandwagon argument- you will be left behind
2. appeal to vanity- associate the product with someone admired, saying you'll be admired if you use it too
3. appeal to snobbery- these are so special only the coolest have them

Front 5

argument against the person- ad homenim abusive

Back 5

verbally abusing the second arguer

Front 6

argument against the person- ad homenim circumstansial

Back 6

alluding to circumstances that make the second arguer predisposed to argue that way

Front 7

argument against the person- tu toque

Back 7

one arguer tries to make the other appear hypocritical

Front 8

accident

Back 8

a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover

Front 9

straw man

Back 9

arguer distorts an opponents argument to more easily attack it then disproves the latter argument and then concludes the real argument was demolished as well

Front 10

missing the point

Back 10

the premises support one conclusion but then some other conclusion is drawn

one must be able to identify the correct conclusion which the given premises logically imply

Front 11

appeal to force

Back 11

threatens harm if listener does not accept conclusion

Front 12

appeal to pity

Back 12

supports conclusion by arousing pity

Front 13

appeal to people- direct approach

Back 13

get everyone together; mob mentality

Front 14

appeal to people- indirect approach

Back 14

singles one member of the crowd out
1. bandwagon argument- you will be left behind
2. appeal to vanity- associate the product with someone admired, saying you'll be admired if you use it too
3. appeal to snobbery- these are so special only the coolest have them

Front 15

argument against the person- ad homenim abusive

Back 15

verbally abusing the second arguer

Front 16

argument against the person- ad homenim

Back 16

alluding to circumstances that make the second arguer predisposed to argue that way

Front 17

argument against the person- tu toque

Back 17

one arguer tries to make the other appear hypocritical

Front 18

accident

Back 18

a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover

Front 19

straw man

Back 19

arguer distorts an opponents argument to more easily attack it then disproves the latter argument and then concludes the real argument was demolished as well

Front 20

missing the point

Back 20

the premises support one conclusion but then some other conclusion is drawn

one must be able to identify the correct conclusion which the given premises logically imply

Front 21

red herring

Back 21

arguer changes the subject then draws a conclusion about the different idea or assumes a clear conclusion was made

Front 22

appeal to unqualified authority

Back 22

cited authority lacks credibility

Front 23

appeal to ignorance

Back 23

premises show that nothing has been claimed one way or another but the conclusion makes a definite assertion

Front 24

hasty generalization

Back 24

argument draws a conclusion about all members of a group from evidence from a particular example and there is reasonable likelihood that the sample does not represent the group

Front 25

false cause

Back 25

link between premise and conclusion probably doesn't exist

Front 26

slippery slop

Back 26

argument rests on a chain reaction thats not likely to take place or there is not enough evidence to say it will

Front 27

weak analogy

Back 27

analogy not strong enough to support conclusion

Front 28

8 fallacies of relevance

Back 28

1. appeal to force
2. appeal to pity
3. appeal to people
4. argument against the person
5. accident
6. straw man
7. missing the point
8. red herring

Front 29

6 fallacies of weak induction

Back 29

1. appeal to unqualified authority
2. appeal to ignorance
3. hasty generalization
4. false cause
5. slippery slope
6. weak analogy

Front 30

post hoc ergo propter hoc

Back 30

after this therefore on this account

Front 31

non causa pro causa

Back 31

not the cause for the cause

Front 32

begging the question

Back 32

the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequeate support for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly false (shakey) key premise, by restating the possibly false premise as the conlusion or arguing in a circle

Front 33

complex question

Back 33

when two (or more) questions are asked in the guise of a single question and a single answer is then given to both of them

Front 34

false dichotomy

Back 34

a disjunctive (either/or) premise presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available, and the arguer then eliminates the undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one as the conclusion

Front 35

suppressed evidence

Back 35

an inductive argument that ignores an important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence that entails a very different conclusion

Front 36

equivocation

Back 36

the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument

Front 37

amphiboly

Back 37

the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation

Front 38

composition

Back 38

the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole

Front 39

division

Back 39

the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (or a class) onto its parts (or members)