Group Four: Sample Fallacies And Booby Traps

The given statement is an example of an appeal to authority fallacy. The speaker, who is an actor playing a doctor on TV, is using their perceived authority in the medical field to endorse Tylenol for headaches. However, being an actor does not make them a medical expert, so their endorsement is not necessarily based on valid medical knowledge or evidence. This fallacy occurs when someone relies on the opinion or endorsement of an authority figure, rather than on sound reasoning or evidence, to support their argument.

The correct answer is Undistributed Middle. This fallacy occurs when the middle term in a syllogism is not distributed (referring to all members of a class) in either the major or minor premise. In this case, the argument assumes that because poetry and music are both based on rhythm, poetry must be a kind of music. However, this does not necessarily follow as there could be other factors that differentiate poetry from music. The middle term "based on rhythm" is not distributed in either premise, making the argument fallacious.

The given statement presents a straw man fallacy. It misrepresents the opposing argument by suggesting that anyone who disagrees with passing a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning hates America. This argument diverts attention from the actual issue at hand, which is whether or not flag burning should be illegal, and instead creates a false and exaggerated representation of the opposing viewpoint.

The given explanation for the correct answer, Red Herring, is that it diverts attention from the main issue by introducing irrelevant information. In this case, the statement brings up the fact that many presidents have had extramarital affairs, which is unrelated to whether or not President Clinton can be blamed for his own affairs. This distracts from the main point and is a classic example of a red herring fallacy.

Vagueness refers to a lack of clarity or precision in language or statements. In this context, the statement "Middle-class families are paying more taxes than ever" is vague because it does not specify which country or time period it is referring to. Without this information, it is difficult to determine the accuracy or relevance of the statement. Vagueness can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of information.

The husband's response of assuming that Mr. Smith's wife got fed up with his unfaithfulness is an example of vagueness. The wife simply mentioned that Mr. Smith is cooking on his new grill, but the husband jumps to a completely unrelated conclusion without any evidence or clear reasoning. This response is vague because it lacks clarity and is based on assumptions rather than concrete information.

The explanation for the correct answer, which is "Equivocation," is that the argument relies on a play on words or ambiguous language. The statement suggests that really exciting novels are rare and expensive, but it fails to clarify whether the rarity refers to all really exciting novels or just the ones that the person can't afford. This ambiguity in the meaning of "rare" allows for a shift in the argument's conclusion, making it an example of equivocation.

The explanation for the correct answer, "Questionable Use of Statistics," is that the statement assumes that because Miller Lite is cheap beer, Guinness will also be cheap. However, this conclusion is based on a faulty use of statistics, as the price of one beer does not necessarily determine the price of another. The statement does not provide any evidence or data to support the claim that Guinness will be cheap based on the price of Miller Lite. Therefore, the reasoning is flawed and relies on questionable use of statistics.

The given explanation suggests that the answer to the question is Genetic Fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone's argument is dismissed based on irrelevant or unrelated factors about the person making the argument. In this case, the argument in favor of legalizing pornography is dismissed because of personal attacks on Allen Ginsberg's character, such as being a pot-smoking homosexual and advocate of the drug culture. These personal characteristics have no direct relevance to the validity of his argument, making it a genetic fallacy.

The radio talk show host's response is a red herring because he is diverting attention away from the association of critical thinking professors and their suggestion by focusing on the size of his audience and belittling the professors. He is not addressing the validity of their claim or providing any relevant information to support his argument. Instead, he is using a tactic to distract from the main issue and discredit the professors without providing any substantial counterarguments.