Logical Fallacies Multiple Choice Quiz

The given answer is False Dilemma (Either/or) because it presents only two options (pay taxes or go to jail) as the only possible choices, ignoring any other alternatives or possibilities. This type of fallacy assumes that there are only two extreme options when in reality there may be other options or solutions available.

The given statement attacks the person presenting the argument by calling them frauds and questioning their salary. This is a classic example of an ad hominem fallacy, where instead of addressing the argument itself, the focus is shifted to attacking the person making the argument.

The given answer, "Red Herring," is correct because it accurately describes the situation where a person introduces an irrelevant point or side issue that distracts from the main argument. In this case, the person acknowledges that the argument about integration and busing may be valid, but then brings up the unrelated issue of safety on the buses, which diverts attention away from the main point being discussed. This diversion is a classic example of a red herring fallacy.

The given answer, "Over generalizing (hasty/faulty generalization)," is the correct explanation for the statement "drawing a larger conclusion than the evidence supports." This is because the statement "All robin have red breasts; men don't cry" is an example of overgeneralization, where a conclusion is made based on limited evidence or a single instance. In this case, the conclusion that all men don't cry is being drawn from the evidence that all robins have red breasts, which is an illogical and unsupported generalization.

Ad Ignorantium is the correct answer because it aligns with the given explanation. Ad Ignorantium is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone argues that something must be true because it hasn't been proven false. In this case, the person assumes that their candidate won't win because they can't prove otherwise. This is a classic example of using ignorance as a basis for an argument.

The given statement suggests that the assumption that one cigarette will lead youth to addiction is an example of a slippery slope. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that one event will inevitably lead to a series of increasingly negative events, without sufficient evidence to support this claim. In this case, the assumption that smoking one cigarette will lead to addiction is an exaggerated and unsupported claim, making it an example of a slippery slope fallacy.

The correct answer is Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. This fallacy occurs when someone assumes that because one event happened before another event, the first event must have caused the second event. In this case, the person is assuming that leaving the milk out all night caused it to spoil, simply because it was left out before it spoiled. However, there could be other factors at play, such as the milk being close to its expiration date or being contaminated before it was left out.

The given answer, "Ad Misèricordiam," is the correct explanation for the given statement. Ad Misèricordiam, also known as appeal to pity, is a logical fallacy where someone tries to win an argument by evoking pity or sympathy from the audience. In this case, the person is using their grandmother's death and stroke as a way to gain sympathy and potentially manipulate others into accepting their argument or viewpoint.

The given answer is "Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning." This is because the statement "We know God exists because he made everything" is using circular reasoning. Circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in one of the premises, essentially assuming what you are trying to prove. In this case, the existence of God is being used as evidence for his existence, which is a logical fallacy.

The phrase "you did it, too; guilty of the same crime" suggests that the speaker is accusing someone of a wrongdoing while also admitting to doing the same thing. This is a classic example of tu quoque, which is a logical fallacy that involves deflecting criticism by pointing out the hypocrisy of the accuser. In this case, the speaker is trying to undermine the credibility of the person they are accusing by highlighting their own guilt in the matter.

The given correct answer, "Oversimplification," suggests that the argument overlooks the complexity of the issue at hand. The statement claims that students are poor writers because they watch too much TV, which is a simplistic explanation that fails to consider other factors that could contribute to poor writing skills. It ignores the possibility that there could be other reasons for students' writing abilities, such as lack of proper education or practice. Thus, the answer implies that the argument oversimplifies the situation by attributing a complex issue to a single cause.

The given statement "Our gang will beat up anyone who doesn't vote our way" demonstrates the use of force or threat of violence to persuade someone to vote a certain way. This is an example of the fallacy known as Ad Baculum, which is an appeal to force. It is a logical fallacy because it relies on intimidation and coercion rather than presenting valid arguments or evidence to support a position.

The given answer, "Ad populum," refers to the fallacy of appealing to popular opinion as a way to justify the correctness of an idea or argument. In this case, the statement "Vietnam War—America, love it or leave it" is using the popularity of the sentiment to suggest that supporting the war is the right thing to do. However, the popularity of an idea does not necessarily make it true or valid, making this an example of the ad populum fallacy.

The given statement "Good old brown soap gets you really clean" appeals to both the Plain Folks and Snob Appeal techniques. It appeals to the Plain Folks technique by suggesting that using ordinary brown soap is the way that regular people get clean, implying that it is a practical and affordable option. At the same time, it also appeals to the Snob Appeal technique by using the phrase "good old" and implying that using this soap is a sophisticated and high-class choice.

Guilt by Association is the correct answer because it refers to the logical fallacy of assuming that because two things are connected or associated, they must share the same characteristics or qualities. In this case, the statement suggests that if someone hangs out in a bar, they will automatically be an alcoholic, which is an unfair and unfounded assumption. The answer implies that the reason why your friends are your friends is because you are alike, which does not logically follow the given statement.

The given statement suggests that the opponent is imaginary or made of straw, implying that they are weak and easily defeated. This aligns with the concept of a weak opponent, as it refers to creating an opponent who poses little to no challenge or threat. The statement also mentions attacking without fear of retaliation, further indicating the weakness of the opponent. Therefore, the correct answer is Weak Opponent.

The question is an example of loaded language because it is designed to provoke a prejudicial answer. Loaded language is language that is intentionally emotive or biased in order to sway the reader or listener's opinion. In this case, the question assumes that the person being asked has beaten their wife in the past, which is a highly negative and prejudiced assumption.

The given answer, "Card Stacking," is the most appropriate explanation for the provided information. Card stacking is a propaganda technique where only selective or biased information is presented to support a particular viewpoint while ignoring any contradictory evidence. In this case, the person is only focusing on positive aspects of President Clinton's character, such as being moral, married, loving his daughter, talking about the Bible, and going to church. This selective presentation of information is an example of card stacking, as it aims to portray President Clinton in a positive light while disregarding any negative aspects or opposing viewpoints.

This question is asking for the correct term that describes the given statement, "Six million read a paper—must be excellent." The statement is appealing to the idea that because a large number of people are doing something (reading a paper), it must be excellent. This is an example of the bandwagon fallacy, which is when someone argues that because everyone else is doing something, you should do it too.

not-available-via-ai

The given statement suggests that MJ, who is a good athlete, will be a good source of information on the economy. This is an example of the fallacy of Ad Verecumdiam, also known as the appeal to authority. The statement is implying that MJ's expertise in athletics automatically qualifies him as an expert on the economy, which is inappropriate and illogical.

The phrase "Reduce to an absurdity" suggests that the argument is being taken to an extreme or illogical conclusion in order to show its flaws. In this case, the statement "One pill is good, two will be better" is being exaggerated to an absurd level, implying that taking an unlimited number of pills would be even better. This is a classic example of reductio ad absurdum, where an argument is shown to be false or flawed by taking it to an extreme that is clearly illogical or absurd.

The correct answer is Equivocation. Equivocation refers to the use of ambiguous language or words with multiple meanings in order to deceive or mislead. In the given statement, the person claims to have "borrowed" the pen instead of "stealing" it, using the ambiguity of the word to justify their actions. This is an example of equivocation because they are intentionally using a different meaning of the word to avoid admitting to theft.

The given correct answer is "Non Sequitur". A non sequitur is a logical fallacy where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises or evidence provided. In this case, the photo of a flying saucer does not necessarily mean that aliens have visited Earth. The conclusion does not logically follow from the evidence presented, making it a non sequitur.

The given correct answer is "Fallacy of Opposition." This fallacy occurs when someone assumes that anything coming from the opposition must be wrong and harmful. In this case, the argument suggests that cloning is wrong because atheists favor it. However, this is a fallacy because the validity or morality of cloning should not be determined solely based on the beliefs or preferences of a particular group. It is important to evaluate the merits of cloning on its own rather than dismissing it based on the opposition's stance.

The given correct answer is "Rationalization". A rationalization is a cognitive process where someone tries to justify or explain their actions, beliefs, or decisions in a way that makes them seem reasonable or acceptable, even if they are not. In this case, the Senate passed the tax bill knowing that the President would veto it. They may try to rationalize their decision by providing reasons or justifications for passing the bill, even though they were aware of the eventual outcome.

not-available-via-ai

The given statement suggests that the validity of an idea is influenced by where it comes from. The response "He’s just a psychology teacher at a community college" is an example of a genetic fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone dismisses an idea based on its origin or the person presenting it, rather than evaluating the idea itself. In this case, the response implies that the psychology teacher's idea is invalid simply because of his position at a community college. This is not a valid argument and does not address the validity of the idea itself.