The Fallacy Game: Interesting Trivia Questions Quiz

Approved & Edited by ProProfs Editorial Team
The editorial team at ProProfs Quizzes consists of a select group of subject experts, trivia writers, and quiz masters who have authored over 10,000 quizzes taken by more than 100 million users. This team includes our in-house seasoned quiz moderators and subject matter experts. Our editorial experts, spread across the world, are rigorously trained using our comprehensive guidelines to ensure that you receive the highest quality quizzes.
Learn about Our Editorial Process
| By Profallenberry
P
Profallenberry
Community Contributor
Quizzes Created: 1 | Total Attempts: 13,918
Questions: 14 | Attempts: 13,920

SettingsSettingsSettings
The Fallacy Game: Interesting Trivia Questions Quiz - Quiz

Below is The Fallacy Game Interesting Trivia Questions Quiz. This is a quiz game designed to teach students how to identify logical fallacies in an argument. The fallacies covered are "Begging the Question, Circular Reasoning, Weak Analogy, Ad Hominem, Hasty or Sweeping Generality, Either/Or, Red Herring, Equivocation, Slippery Slope. If you are looking to see how to tell, you know the game to be sure to take the quiz.


Questions and Answers
  • 1. 

    Defense Attorney:  This young man could not possibly have killed his parents, because he is now an orphan.

    • A.

      Red Herring

    • B.

      Circular Reasoning

    • C.

      Bandwagon

    • D.

      None of the above

    Correct Answer
    B. Circular Reasoning
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 2. 

    How is a raven like a writing desk? Because Poe wrote on both.

    • A.

      Red Herring

    • B.

      Weak Analogy

    • C.

      Bandwagon

    • D.

      Begging the question

    Correct Answer
    B. Weak Analogy
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 3. 

    Which fallacy involves attacking the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself?

    • A.

      Appeal to authority 

    • B.

      Ad hominem 

    • C.

      Strawman 

    • D.

      Hasty generalization

    Correct Answer
    B. Ad hominem 
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 4. 

    …[I]f once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination. Once begin upon this downward path, you never know where you are to stop. Many a man has dated his ruin from some murder or other that perhaps he thought little of at the time.

    • A.

      Weak Analogy

    • B.

      Slippery Slope

    • C.

      Equivocation

    • D.

      None of the above

    Correct Answer
    B. Slippery Slope
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 5. 

    Gerda Reith is convinced that superstition can be a positive force. "It gives you a sense of control by making you think you can work out what's going to happen next," she says. "And it also makes you feel lucky. And to take a risk or to enter into a chancy situation, you really have to believe in your own luck. In that sense, it's a very useful way of thinking, because the alternative is fatalism, which is to say, 'Oh, there's nothing I can do.' At least superstition makes people do things."

    • A.

      Red Herring

    • B.

      Weak Analogy

    • C.

      Equivocation

    • D.

      Either/or fallacy

    Correct Answer
    D. Either/or fallacy
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 6. 

    "We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."

    • A.

      Red Herring

    • B.

      Weak Analogy

    • C.

      Equivocation

    • D.

      Circular Reasoning

    Correct Answer
    A. Red Herring
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 7. 

    "If you do not buy this type of pet food, you are neglecting your dog."

    • A.

      Red Herring

    • B.

      Misuse of Statistics

    • C.

      Equivocation

    • D.

      Non Sequitur

    Correct Answer
    D. Non Sequitur
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 8. 

    Which logical fallacy occurs when someone draws a sweeping conclusion about a group of people based on a single, isolated incident?

    • A.

      Appeal to ignorance 

    • B.

      Hasty generalization 

    • C.

      False cause 

    • D.

      Slippery slope

    Correct Answer
    B. Hasty generalization 
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 9. 

    More and more young people are attending high schools and colleges today than ever before. Yet there is more juvenile delinquency and more alienation among the young. This makes it clear that these young people are being corrupted by their education.

    • A.

      Red Herring

    • B.

      Bandwagon

    • C.

      Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

    • D.

      Non Sequitur

    Correct Answer
    C. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 10. 

    A feather is light. What is light cannot be dark. Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

    • A.

      Equivocation

    • B.

      Bandwagon

    • C.

      Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

    • D.

      Non Sequitur

    Correct Answer
    A. Equivocation
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 11. 

    Four out of five dentists recommend brand X gum, choose the gum that most dentists think  is better for your teeth.

    • A.

      You also (Tu Quoque)

    • B.

      Misuse of Statistics

    • C.

      Appeal to Doubtful Authority

    • D.

      Slippery Slope

    Correct Answer
    B. Misuse of Statistics
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 12. 

    http://youtu.be/rfj3dPkeaqI

    • A.

      You also (Tu Quoque)

    • B.

      Misuse of Statistics

    • C.

      Appeal to Doubtful Authority

    • D.

      None of the Above

    Correct Answer
    A. You also (Tu Quoque)
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 13. 

    Which of the following is an example of the "appeal to authority" fallacy?  

    • A.

      According to several scientific studies, climate change is a real and pressing issue.

    • B.

      My favorite celebrity endorses this product, so it must be effective.

    • C.

      The majority of people in our town support the new city development plan.

    • D.

      My doctor recommended this treatment, so it must be the best option.

    Correct Answer
    B. My favorite celebrity endorses this product, so it must be effective.
    Explanation
    This statement relies on the endorsement of a celebrity rather than providing valid evidence or reasoning.

    Rate this question:

  • 14. 

    Birds normally can fly. Tweety the Penguin is a bird. Therefore, Tweety can fly.

    • A.

      Circular Reasoning

    • B.

      Sweeping generalization

    • C.

      Appeal to Doubtful Authority

    • D.

      None of the Above

    Correct Answer
    B. Sweeping generalization
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

Quiz Review Timeline +

Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.

  • Current Version
  • Feb 09, 2024
    Quiz Edited by
    ProProfs Editorial Team
  • Feb 03, 2011
    Quiz Created by
    Profallenberry
Back to Top Back to top
Advertisement
×

Wait!
Here's an interesting quiz for you.

We have other quizzes matching your interest.