The Fallacies And Ethical Argument Terms Quiz

1. What does the term 'Non Sequitur' mean in the context of fallacies in logic?

A statement that logically follows from the evidence provided

A fallacy where the conclusion can always be inferred from the evidence

Non Sequitur in Latin for "it does not follow." In this type of fallacy, the conclusion does not follow from the evidence and the warrant.

A fallacy where the evidence is irrelevant to the conclusion

Non Sequitur is a logical fallacy where the conclusion does not logically follow from the evidence or premises presented, making it invalid.

Explanation

Non Sequitur is a logical fallacy where the conclusion does not logically follow from the evidence or premises presented, making it invalid.

2. What is a Straw Man fallacy in logic?

A type of fallacy where someone attacks the person presenting the argument rather than the argument itself.

A fallacy where a statement is assumed to be true based on the claim's origin or source.

A straw man involves attributing an argument to an opponent that the opponent never made and then refuting it in a devastating way. the arguer sets up an idea, refutes it, and appears to win, even though the idea may be unrelated to the issue being discussed.

A fallacy that occurs when an argument is judged based on its weak traits rather than its strong ones.

A Straw Man fallacy involves misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack, rather than addressing the actual argument made by the opponent. It is a common tactic used to deceive or distract from the real issue being discussed.

Explanation

A Straw Man fallacy involves misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack, rather than addressing the actual argument made by the opponent. It is a common tactic used to deceive or distract from the real issue being discussed.

3. What is the fallacy of stacked evidence in logic?

Using logical reasoning to present all the evidence on both sides of an issue.

Including irrelevant information to distract from the main issue at hand.

Stacking evidence to represent only one side of an issue that is clearly has two sides gives a distorted impression of the issue.

Ignoring evidence that contradicts your argument to make it seem stronger.

The fallacy of stacked evidence involves only presenting evidence that supports a particular side of an issue, while ignoring evidence that may support the other side or provide a more balanced view. This can lead to a distorted and biased impression of the issue.

Explanation

The fallacy of stacked evidence involves only presenting evidence that supports a particular side of an issue, while ignoring evidence that may support the other side or provide a more balanced view. This can lead to a distorted and biased impression of the issue.

4. What is the fallacy known as Manufactured Evidence?

Twisting the words of an opponent to make their argument seem weaker.

Manipulating existing evidence to fit a claim, even if it is not directly related.

Ignoring evidence that contradicts a claim in order to strengthen the argument.

Using fake evidence to prove a claim will discredit an entire argument and ruin the reputation of the individual who makes it up.

Presenting anecdotal evidence as if it is universally applicable.

Manufactured evidence involves creating or using fake evidence to support a claim, which is a clear violation of logical reasoning principles. The other options describe different fallacies, such as cherry-picking evidence, using anecdotal evidence, or misrepresenting an opponent's argument, but they do not specifically focus on the act of manufacturing evidence.

Explanation

Manufactured evidence involves creating or using fake evidence to support a claim, which is a clear violation of logical reasoning principles. The other options describe different fallacies, such as cherry-picking evidence, using anecdotal evidence, or misrepresenting an opponent's argument, but they do not specifically focus on the act of manufacturing evidence.

5. Which of the following best describes Fallacies in LogicUnreliable or Insufficient Evidence?

Evidence should be verified, which means you should be able to look it up in another source and find the same information. There should also be enough evidence, and major information that could change the way one interprets the evidence should not be omitted.

It is acceptable to omit important information that could change the interpretation of evidence.

Evidence should be taken at face value without any verification.

Having insufficient evidence is not a significant issue in logic fallacies.

Fallacies in LogicUnreliable or Insufficient Evidence refers to errors in reasoning that occur due to unreliable or insufficient evidence. It is important to verify the evidence, ensure all necessary information is included, and avoid omitting major details.

Explanation

Fallacies in LogicUnreliable or Insufficient Evidence refers to errors in reasoning that occur due to unreliable or insufficient evidence. It is important to verify the evidence, ensure all necessary information is included, and avoid omitting major details.

6. What is the effect of using exaggerated or oversimplified evidence in logic?

Oversimplified evidence always improves clarity in arguments.

Using exaggerated evidence does not impact the credibility of an argument.

Exaggerated evidence strengthens an argument.

Oversimplifying evidence can discredit an argument.

Using exaggerated or oversimplified evidence can lead to logical fallacies by distorting the true representation of facts and weakening the validity of the argument.

Explanation

Using exaggerated or oversimplified evidence can lead to logical fallacies by distorting the true representation of facts and weakening the validity of the argument.

7. What are Fallacies in LogicDistorted Statistics?

Statistics are always accurate and cannot be distorted.

Statistics can be manipulated or changed so that they appear to support a claim when. actually, they do not.

Distorted statistics are errors caused by technical glitches in data collection.

Fallacies in LogicDistorted Statistics refers to making logical errors while interpreting statistical data.

Fallacies in LogicDistorted Statistics involve manipulating statistics to support a claim, even if the data does not actually do so.

Explanation

Fallacies in LogicDistorted Statistics involve manipulating statistics to support a claim, even if the data does not actually do so.

8. What is the fallacy in logic known as Either-Or?

Making multiple conflicting claims that appear to be true

Using someone's beliefs or prejudices to support your argument

Assuming that because one event follows another, the first event caused the second

Some arguments are oversimplified by the arguer and presented as black-or-white, either-or choices when there are other alternatives.

The fallacy in logic known as Either-Or occurs when arguments are oversimplified and presented as black-or-white choices without considering other alternatives.

Explanation

The fallacy in logic known as Either-Or occurs when arguments are oversimplified and presented as black-or-white choices without considering other alternatives.

9. What is the definition of Fallacies in Logic Post Hoc?

Post hoc is a fallacy that occurs when two events happen at the same time.

Post hoc is a fallacy that occurs when something happens as a result of something that happened before it.

This is short for post hoc, ergo propter hoc, a Latin phrase that translates as "after this, therefore because of this." To put it more simply, post hoc is the fallacy of faulty cause.

Post hoc is a fallacy that occurs when causation is wrongly assumed between two events.

The correct definition of Fallacies in Logic Post Hoc involves a faulty cause due to the misconception of 'after this, therefore because of this'. The incorrect answers do not accurately describe the concept and misuse the understanding of the fallacy.

Explanation

The correct definition of Fallacies in Logic Post Hoc involves a faulty cause due to the misconception of 'after this, therefore because of this'. The incorrect answers do not accurately describe the concept and misuse the understanding of the fallacy.

10. What is the fallacy of guilt by association in terms of character or ethos?

The fallacy of guilt by association suggests that people's character can be judged by examining the character of their associates.

Guilt by association only applies to criminal activities and not character judgments.

Judging someone's character based on their personal beliefs rather than their associations is an example of this fallacy.

This fallacy assumes that a person's character is determined by their actions and behaviors alone.

The fallacy of guilt by association is a logical fallacy that suggests a person's character can be judged based on the character of their associates, without any concrete evidence of the person's own actions or beliefs. It is important to recognize and avoid making character judgments based solely on the actions or beliefs of others.

Explanation

The fallacy of guilt by association is a logical fallacy that suggests a person's character can be judged based on the character of their associates, without any concrete evidence of the person's own actions or beliefs. It is important to recognize and avoid making character judgments based solely on the actions or beliefs of others.

11. What fallacy occurs when someone uses personal authority instead of evidence to prove a point?

Ad hominem fallacy

Appeal to popularity fallacy

This is a variation of begging the question. The arguer relies on personal authority to prove a point rather than on evidence.

False dichotomy fallacy

The correct answer refers to the fallacy of using personal authority instead of evidence. Ad hominem fallacy involves attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. Appeal to popularity fallacy argues that something must be true because many people believe it. False dichotomy fallacy presents only two options when more exist.

Explanation

The correct answer refers to the fallacy of using personal authority instead of evidence. Ad hominem fallacy involves attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. Appeal to popularity fallacy argues that something must be true because many people believe it. False dichotomy fallacy presents only two options when more exist.

12. What is the Bandwagon Appeal fallacy?

Assuming something is true because it hasn't been proven false yet.

The argument is that everyone is doing something, so you should too.

Using personal attacks instead of addressing the argument.

Arguing that something is right because it is in line with tradition.

The Bandwagon Appeal fallacy occurs when someone argues that because everyone else is doing something, you should do it too. This does not necessarily make the argument valid or logical.

Explanation

The Bandwagon Appeal fallacy occurs when someone argues that because everyone else is doing something, you should do it too. This does not necessarily make the argument valid or logical.

13. What is the slippery-slope fallacy?

A strategy to avoid making decisions by presenting hypothetical worst-case scenarios.

A logical argument that explains the consequences of a particular decision or action.

The belief that all slopes are inherently dangerous and slippery.

The slippery-slope fallacy is a scare tactic that suggests that if we allow one thing to happen, we will immediately be sliding down a slippery slope to disaster.

The slippery-slope fallacy is a type of logical fallacy that involves suggesting that one small step will lead to a chain of events that will result in a disastrous outcome. It is often used as a way to manipulate emotions and create fear in order to dissuade people from taking a particular action.

Explanation

The slippery-slope fallacy is a type of logical fallacy that involves suggesting that one small step will lead to a chain of events that will result in a disastrous outcome. It is often used as a way to manipulate emotions and create fear in order to dissuade people from taking a particular action.

14. Emotional Fallacies: Creating False Needs

D. Emotional fallacies never involve creating false needs or exaggerating existing ones.

B. Emotional fallacies do not manipulate people's perceived needs or desires.

C. Emotional proofs are always based on genuine needs and desires of individuals.

A. Emotional fallacies are based on logical reasoning and evidence rather than emotions.

Emotional proofs appeal to what people value and think they need. Sometimes an arguer will create a false sense of need where none exists or will unrealistically heighten an existing need.

Emotional fallacies often manipulate individuals by creating false needs or exaggerating existing needs, which can lead to flawed arguments based on emotions rather than logic or evidence.

Explanation

Emotional fallacies often manipulate individuals by creating false needs or exaggerating existing needs, which can lead to flawed arguments based on emotions rather than logic or evidence.

15. What are Emotional Fallacies distorting Emotional Appeal?

Avoiding emotional appeals altogether

Using logical reasoning to support emotional appeals

Irrelevant and unrelated emotional examples or stories that are unrelated to the subject are sometimes used to try to prove a point.

Providing clear evidence and facts to back emotional arguments

Emotional Fallacies distorting Emotional Appeal involve using irrelevant emotional examples or stories to support an argument, rather than focusing on relevant facts or evidence.

Explanation

Emotional Fallacies distorting Emotional Appeal involve using irrelevant emotional examples or stories to support an argument, rather than focusing on relevant facts or evidence.

16. What characteristics do ethical arguers possess?

Ethical arguers should focus on winning the argument at any cost.

Ethical arguers should manipulate facts and information to support their position.

Must have the courage and willingness to argue logically and honestly from a strong sense of personal integrity and values. They should also have a strong sense of responsibility and feel obliged to come forward and advocate for what they believe is right.

Ethical arguers should prioritize personal gain over truth and integrity.

Ethical arguers are defined by their commitment to logical and honest arguments based on personal integrity and values, as well as a strong sense of responsibility to advocate for what they believe is right.

Explanation

Ethical arguers are defined by their commitment to logical and honest arguments based on personal integrity and values, as well as a strong sense of responsibility to advocate for what they believe is right.

17. What do unethical arguers often do to influence their points of view?

Encourage open and honest dialogue to reach a mutual understanding.

Present valid and reliable evidence to support their points of view.

Often use unethical tactics to influence and fain adherence to their points of view. Such tactics include opinion polls that push for particular points of view, exaggerated or manipulated statistics, manufactured evidence, outright lies, and deliberatly fallicious reasoning,

Respect opposing viewpoints and engage in constructive debate.

Unethical arguers resort to manipulative tactics like skewed polls, false statistics, manufactured evidence, lies, and flawed reasoning to sway opinions in their favor.

Explanation

Unethical arguers resort to manipulative tactics like skewed polls, false statistics, manufactured evidence, lies, and flawed reasoning to sway opinions in their favor.

18. What is the fallacy of Begging the Question in Logic?

Begging for an answer without providing any context or arguments.

No support is provided by the arguer who begs the question, and the claim is simply restated, over and over again, in one form or another.

Using circular reasoning to support a claim without evidence.

Making a claim based on personal authority rather than valid evidence.

Presenting a strong emotional appeal to distract from the lack of logical reasoning.

Begging the Question is a fallacy where no real evidence or support is provided for a claim, and instead, the claim is simply restated repeatedly in different ways without actually proving anything.

Explanation

Begging the Question is a fallacy where no real evidence or support is provided for a claim, and instead, the claim is simply restated repeatedly in different ways without actually proving anything.

19. Fallacies in Logic: Red Herring

A red herring is a valid and relevant argument that strengthens the original point.

A red herring is a type of logical fallacy that exposes flaws in the opponent's argument.

A red herring provides irrelevant and misleading support that pulls the audience away from the real argument.

A red herring is a rhetorical technique used to summarize key points in an argument.

A red herring is a fallacy where irrelevant information is presented to distract the audience from the actual argument being made, causing a diversion and leading away from the main issue. It is considered a deceptive tactic employed to shift focus and confuse listeners.

Explanation

A red herring is a fallacy where irrelevant information is presented to distract the audience from the actual argument being made, causing a diversion and leading away from the main issue. It is considered a deceptive tactic employed to shift focus and confuse listeners.