The Fallacy Game - Meeks

The statement suggests that the person desires to eat as many Pop-tarts as they want without the consequence of getting fat. This reflects wishful thinking, as it is an unrealistic and idealistic desire that goes against the reality of gaining weight from excessive consumption.

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.

The correct answer is Ad hominem. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy where instead of addressing the argument or issue at hand, the person attacking the argument attacks the person making the argument. In this conversation, Bob disregards Sue's opinion on free tuition by attacking her personally, stating that she didn't finish high school and therefore doesn't know anything about education. This is an example of an ad hominem attack because Bob is not addressing Sue's argument, but rather attacking her personally.

Appeal to authority is when you try to make your point by attaching it to someone whose opinions or knowledge are respected, instead of arguing it on its own merits. An appeal to tradition is similar, except instead of an authority, you rely on what's familiar and comfortable.

The coach is using the phrase "senior moment" as an explanation for why he does not remember what the athletic director said. This is an example of explaining by naming, as he is attributing his forgetfulness to a commonly understood term associated with memory lapses in older individuals.

The fallacy in this statement is equivocation. Equivocation occurs when a term is used in different senses within the same argument, leading to a false or misleading conclusion. In this case, the term "right" is used in two different senses - one referring to moral correctness and the other referring to a legal entitlement. Therefore, the argument is flawed because it incorrectly assumes that the two uses of "right" are interchangeable and that what is morally right should always be said.

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.

Begging the question is also known as a circular argument. It means you try to back up your point, but what you say to back it up also needs some kind of explanation or justification.

The coach's statement that a curfew is not needed because his players should know how to take care of themselves physically suggests wishful thinking. It implies that the players will always make responsible choices and take care of themselves without any external rules or restrictions. However, this assumption may not be realistic, as individuals may have different levels of self-discipline and may benefit from the structure and accountability provided by a curfew.

The correct answer is Straw Man. In this argument, Bill misrepresents Jill's argument by suggesting that she wants to clean out the closets every day, which she never stated. He then attacks this exaggerated version of her argument as ridiculous. This is an example of a straw man fallacy, where one person distorts the other person's argument to make it easier to attack.

This answer suggests that the argument is committing the logical fallacy of False Cause/Either-Or. The argument assumes that because the Soviet Union collapsed after adopting atheism, atheism must be avoided for the same reasons. However, this is a false cause fallacy as it assumes a causal relationship between atheism and the collapse of the Soviet Union without considering other possible factors. Additionally, it presents a false either-or scenario by suggesting that the only options are to adopt atheism or avoid it, without considering other possibilities.

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.

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 coach's statement is an example of glittering generalities because it uses vague and positive language to make the team sound great without providing any specific evidence or details. The coach is appealing to the emotions and aspirations of the possible supporters by using words like "greatest" and "deserves your support," but without giving any concrete reasons or facts to support the claim. This technique is often used in advertising and propaganda to manipulate people's emotions and create a positive image without actually providing substantial evidence.

It is Red Herring becasue it changes the subject and brings in another issue. (Subject is changed from Jefferson owning slaves to his writing the Declaration of Independence.) It is not Straw Man becasue the issue was inflated or exaggerated prior to bringing in a new issue.

The given statement is an example of the fallacy of ad populum. This fallacy occurs when someone argues that a claim must be true because many people believe it or because it is popular. In this case, the argument suggests that extra-sensory perception is reliable because the police, Hollywood stars, and politicians have relied on it. However, the reliability of a belief or practice cannot be determined solely based on the number of people who believe in it or use it.

This is a Straw Man fallacy because the argument has been exaggerated. It also has Appeal to Emotion because it talks about the shooting of a child. But, the original issue, "Guns on Campus" has now been distracted by introducing child care.

Straw man is when you set up the opposing side to look unreasonable by misrepresenting what they actually stand for. There is also appeal to emotion

This is a glittering generalities because the word lousy describes the work and not the person or the person's character.

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.

The correct answer is "Explaining by Naming". This is because the statement categorizes the opponent's beliefs as compromising on ideals, while the speaker's beliefs are described as a birthright. By using these labels, the speaker aims to create a positive association with their own beliefs and a negative association with the opponent's beliefs.

The given conversation suggests that there are two possible options or explanations for why a person would go into a church and kill people. This aligns with the concept of "Either/Or," which refers to presenting only two options or possibilities when there may be more. The conversation does not provide any specific evidence or reasoning, but simply presents two broad possibilities without considering other potential factors.

The given answer is "Either/Or, False Dilemma" because Senator Jill presents a false dilemma by suggesting that the only options are to either cut education funding or live with a huge deficit. This is a false dilemma because there may be other alternatives or solutions to address the deficit without sacrificing education funding. The answer highlights the logical fallacy of presenting only two options when there could be more possibilities.