The Fallacy Game: Interesting Trivia Questions Quiz

This type is based upon the claim that a controversial type of action will lead inevitably to some admittedly bad type of action. It is the slide from A to Z via the intermediate steps B through Y that is the "slope", and the smallness of each step that makes it "slippery". This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A and Z, and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections between adjacent steps. If there are many intervening steps, and the causal connections between them are weak, or even unknown, then the resulting argument will be very weak, if not downright fallacious.

Some arguments from analogy are based on analogies that are so weak that the argument is too weak for the purpose to which it is put. How strong an argument needs to be depends upon the context in which it occurs, and the use that it is intended to serve. Thus, in the absence of other evidence, and as a guide to further research, even a very weak analogical argument may be strong enough. Therefore, while the strength of an argument from analogy depends upon the strength of the analogy in its premises, it is not solely determined by that strength.

The fallacy known as "ad hominem" occurs when someone attacks the character, personality, or reputation of the person making an argument instead of addressing the argument's merits or flaws. This fallacy is an attempt to discredit the argument by focusing on the person making it rather than engaging with the argument itself.

The fallacy of "hasty generalization" takes place when someone draws a broad or sweeping conclusion about a group of people, a situation, or a topic based on insufficient or anecdotal evidence. It involves making a generalization without an adequate sample size or relevant data, often resulting in an inaccurate or unfair assessment.

The given explanation is an example of sweeping generalization. It assumes that all birds can fly based on the premise that birds normally can fly. However, this is not true for all birds, as penguins, like Tweety, are flightless birds. Therefore, the conclusion that Tweety can fly is based on an incorrect generalization about all birds.

This is an example of circular logic because the defense is arguing that the boy can't have killed his parents, because their death makes him an orphan.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation, or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.

The problem with this fallacy is not formal, but is found in its disjunctive—"either-or"—premise: an argument of this type is fallacious when its disjunctive premise is fallaciously supported.

This statement relies on the endorsement of a celebrity rather than providing valid evidence or reasoning.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: 1. Topic A is under discussion. 2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). 3. Topic A is abandoned. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

The given statement about four out of five dentists recommending brand X gum is an example of a misuse of statistics. The statement implies that the majority of dentists prefer brand X gum, making it seem like the better choice for dental health. However, the statement does not provide any information about the total number of dentists surveyed or the criteria used to determine their recommendation. It could be possible that only a small number of dentists were surveyed or that they had a biased opinion. Therefore, the statement does not provide a reliable basis for choosing the gum that dentists think is better for teeth.

The correct answer is "You also (Tu Quoque)". This fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an argument or claim by pointing out that the person making the argument is also guilty of the same thing. In this case, the person is trying to dismiss the argument by saying that the person making it is also guilty of the same behavior. However, this does not address the validity of the argument itself and is therefore a fallacious response.

The statement "If you do not buy this type of pet food, you are neglecting your dog" is an example of a non sequitur. A non sequitur is a logical fallacy where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises or evidence presented. In this case, the statement assumes that not buying a specific type of pet food automatically means neglecting the dog, which is not necessarily true. There could be various reasons for not buying that particular pet food, such as dietary restrictions or financial constraints, that do not necessarily equate to neglecting the dog.

In this use of equivocation, the word "light" is first used as the opposite of "heavy", but then used as a synonym of "bright" (the fallacy usually becomes obvious as soon as one tries to translate this argument into another language). Because the "middle term" of this syllogism is not one term, but two separate ones masquerading as one (all feathers are indeed "not heavy", but it is not true that all feathers are "bright"), this type of equivocation is actually an example of the fallacy of four terms.