“Chapter 19. Fallacies of Evading the Facts” in “Critical Thinking, Logic, and Argument”
Chapter 19 Fallacies of Evading the Facts
We may overlook significant facts or relevant features of a problem entirely; we may evade them or attempt to isolate them, or in the class of fallacies that evade the facts, the arguer appears to be dealing with the relevant facts, but they actually do not. “Evade” means to avoid being direct and potentially to do so with trickery or cleverness. This is not to ascribe mal intent to the arguer—many of these argument forms are considered good because they haven’t been analyzed properly—but, rather we use the word “evade” because the arguer is presenting the information too favourably for them. Remember that one of the key features of a critical thinker is to provide members of the dialogue with sufficient relevant information to understand their claims. When we evade the facts, we give an argument with a semblance of correctness, but it falls short (conditions 4 and 2 of Walton’s definition of fallacies).
The fallacies we deal with here are straw person, begging the question, question-begging epithets, complex question, and special pleading.
19.1 Straw Person
Straw person arguments were previously called a “straw man” argument. You might have already guessed that the term “straw” is used to name the fallacy because straw is weak and there’s a weakness in the argument. This is partially right. When we are engaged in a dialogue, the person we disagree with might have presented a few claims and a conclusion. The effectiveness of our response to those claims depends on how we track what they are claiming and what it means. If we respond—even with a good argument—to something they didn’t say or mean, then our response fails to meet the relevance condition of good arguing. Keep in mind that the straw person fallacy is neutral about whether the person doing the distorting is doing it intentionally or unintentionally.
In the case of the straw person fallacy, an arguer constructs their dialogue partner’s view out of “straw” (to make it easy to knock down), which effectively creates a new person, the “straw person” who is refuted (rather than the original dialogue partner).
The fallacy of straw person has a semblance of correctness (Walton’s part 4) because the arguer actually does knock down the straw person’s argument (because it is weak). But they don’t actually accomplish anything in their dialogue because the original dialogue partner doesn’t hold that view. Let’s discuss an example.
Notice how person B hasn’t even made an argument, and they’ve been smacked down. B merely asked a question about how efficiency relates to educational goals. Surely an organization can have more than one goal. Person A simultaneously mischaracterizes B as wanting to “save the planet” and refutes them, since this is not an achievable goal by a technology system change in a limited organization. These kinds of dialogues are common and often don’t get addressed, especially if the person in position B has less power than person A. Not only has B been shot down, A didn’t do anything to strengthen their position.
So what do we learn from the straw person fallacy? In order to be a good critical thinker, you have to be fair.
You have to ask yourself if the person you are arguing with would endorse the view you are attributing to them. This means being sceptical that you’ve fully understood your dialogue partner. A key feature of improving one’s critical thinking capacities is to be able to reconstruct arguments, which means we have to be thorough and work through arguments step by step, including and perhaps especially the arguments of others. If person A had asked person B above what they meant, person B might have said they’re worried that efficacy might undermine the experiences of those on the other end of the change and thus the change will be efficient in one way but undermine other goals. Notice how there’s nothing here about saving the planet! This is actually raising an important point about how change affects an organization.
In example 1, B misconstrues A’s point. B takes an uncharitable interpretation of A’s view to the extreme and easily refutes it. Of course, A might mean that everyone deserves equal pay for equal work. In example 2, person B is attributing a silly view to person A and thus it is easy to refute. In example 3, B has greatly weakened the view of party A by misconstruing it.
While constructing a straw person is wrong, some arguers don’t even address a person’s view; they rule it unworthy of consideration. This is known as the “pooh-pooh” fallacy or hand-waving.3 Hopefully we don’t have to go into too much detail about why this is a bad way to argue.
19.2 The Fallacy of Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)
People often use “beg the question” in everyday contexts to mean that we need to ask a question. This is not how philosophers generally mean this phrase, and it is not necessarily connected to the definition of the fallacy of begging the question.
The fallacy of begging the question is assuming what you intend to prove or should be proving. It is a failure of the support relationship.
Another way to think of this is that begging the question “stacks the deck” in your favour by essentially putting your own conclusion into your premises. Because of this, begging the question violates the condition that premises support the conclusion. What does begging the question look like? It comes in at least 3 different forms:
This is why begging the question is also called the fallacy of circularity. Petitio principii is a Latin term that means “little circle.” The argument resembles a circle. Let’s consider an example: “The belief in God is universal because everyone believes in God.” Here’s how it makes a circle:
Figure 19.1 Example of circular reasoning (begging the question). Artwork by Jessica Tang.
Ask yourself, What would support the claim that the belief in God is universal? You’d need some kind of poll on all humanity, which would be impossible. You certainly can’t support it with another claim that repeats itself.
Example 1 is similar in form to the question of the universal belief in God pictured above. Here the claim that Joe is the rightful possessor of the bike is supported by the fact that they own it. The problem is that ownership is essentially being the rightful possessor. Sometimes to analyze an example of begging the question, it can help to ask, What would support the claim that “Joe owns the bike”? Maybe if they had a receipt, or the testimony of the salesperson, or other witnesses to Joe’s rightful acquisition of the bike. But what doesn’t support that Joe owns the bike is that they are the rightful possessor of the bike.
Example 2 is a bit more difficult to spot. Here you have a claim that free trade is good for the country. First of all, always be suspicious of the use of the terms “obvious” and “patently clear.” These are words that make it seem like anyone who disagrees is missing what is obvious and clear, which can be an ad hominem. Either way, it doesn’t actually strengthen the claim. This example is circular because each word in the conclusion is just an extended phrase meaning the same thing as the premise. It basically says free trade is good because free trade (unrestricted commercial relations) is good (great benefits).
Example 3 is a slightly different version of the fallacy of begging the question. It uses an unfounded (or at least controversial) generalization to support a conclusion that would fall under the generalization if it were true. If the generalization that socialism is dangerous were true, then the conclusion would follow, but the larger generalization is what is at issue—it needs support. Therefore, it is question begging to define socialism that way in the first place.
Begging the question violates the rule that premises must support the conclusion. Recall that justification is a dependence relation of support (the conclusion depends on the premises). Circularity gets it wrong because it violates this dependence. It asks that the conclusion support itself, which doesn’t work. For an argument to be dialectically acceptable, the conclusion must be in some sense independent of the premises. One way to think of this is that dialectical acceptability supports the premises and the premises support the conclusion. The conclusion is not identical to either premise, nor does it follow from either premise alone. The conclusion requires its premises in order to follow.
We suspect that examples we have given do not deceive anyone because they are easier to detect. In a long argument, it is often easy to miss circularity. This is why looking for the logic of longer passages (What is the thesis [conclusion]? What are the arguments in support [premises]? Are they dialectically acceptable? Why or why not?). One way to get started is to look for repetition and see where the support and dependency relationships are.
Interestingly, a circular argument is not necessarily unsound—for example, it might be a sound argument from the definition. Consider:
To muddy the waters, this argument is valid. But recall that validity is a formal property of arguments where if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. Here, if the premise is true, then the conclusion is also true. And the premise and conclusion are both true, making the argument sound. The problem with the argument is when we start thinking about dialectical acceptability. Does this argument give a reason to believe “Rome is the capital of Italy” to someone who doesn’t know this fact? In order to make it a truly supportive argument, you’d need to say something about what makes it true for a city to be a capital of a country. You’d need to demonstrate that this is accepted by the proper granting authorities in Italy and perhaps even internationally (since that is part of being recognized as a country). You might also need to check to make sure that this fact hasn’t changed in the last stretch of time because you could be wrong. Keep in mind that arguments need to give reasons for belief. While this argument is valid and sound, it fails to give reason for anyone to believe it, which is again a problem of circularity.
19.3 The Fallacy of Question-Begging Epithets
There are other ways in which arguments can achieve circularity. One is to use such prejudicial and suggestive words that you’ve delineated a claim with the conclusion smuggled in. Here, we are question begging using epithets. An epithet is a descriptive word or phrase used to characterize something, generally in a negative way. This fallacy has a number of names in other descriptions of fallacies: loaded words, mudslinging, verbal suggestion, and others.
Question-begging epithets use slanted language that is question begging because it implies what we wish to prove but have not yet proved.
Notice the definition draws our attention again to the support relationship. Slanted language does not prove a claim, and it certainly doesn’t make it dialectically acceptable. Here are some examples:
Example 1 is a question-begging epithet not only because it is negative to be referred to as a “criminal” but also because the person has been called a criminal only by the fact that they have been charged with a crime. We do not actually know if they are a criminal, just that they were charged. This is prejudging guilt.
Example 2 uses as an epithet that the person is a dangerous radical, and it is question begging to imply at the same time that the ideas themselves are dangerous and radical. This example also overlaps with abuse and poisoning the well.
Example 3 barely makes sense, but what it is doing is using slanted language in place of an argument. If something is a bunch of lies, then there must be proof we can point to. This is much better than just declaring something as a lie—that is question begging.
Example 4 gives a kind of slanted language that is using a positive spin. Here, we have the prestige and uplift to be called a breadwinner. This is basically saying the husband should be the breadwinner because he should be the breadwinner (support family). It repeats but does not justify a claim.
19.4 The Fallacy of Complex Question
This fallacy is essentially a question form of the fallacy of begging the question. One way to think of it is that it is a question that fails to properly be a question. This fallacy can go by many names, some of which are trick questions, leading questions, and false questions. The exemplar that is used a lot is the question, “Have you stopped beating your dog?” Why is this a trick question? Because you affirm the premise (that you beat your dog) whether you say no or yes. Notice how this assumes the very thing that should be in question (whether you beat your dog). Of course, you could answer in other ways, such as changing the subject, but in a way that doesn’t follow what we are doing when we pose and answer questions.
The fallacy of complex question is when the arguer asks a question that presupposes the truth of the question at issue.
Identifying this fallacy requires understanding the logic of interrogative inquiry, including why we do it and its purpose. Interrogative inquiry is a form of structured argumentation that hangs on the asking and answering of questions. You are likely familiar with the ways in which lawyers question witnesses in a legal examination.
The aim of legal examination is and should be to reveal the truth. The form of inquiry requires at least two conditions: one, that witnesses answer truthfully, and two, that the questions that are asked are relevant. To ensure these conditions, witnesses are asked to swear to tell the whole truth and judges make sure that the questions asked are relevant by ruling lawyers out of order when the questions aren’t.
At the same time, scientific inquiry can be seen as constituted in part by a structured exercise of truth-seeking questions. A series of questions about the world can be asked (hypotheses, perhaps), and nature “replies” with a truth about the world. Or we can think of proper interrogative inquiry as a kind of game with a number of rules:
Recall that with the fallacy of accent (discussed in Chapter 14), when we ask a question, we presuppose certain background assumptions. These background assumptions are about what is true but also about what the point of the question even is. Even open-ended questions presuppose that you know something. Consider the following: “What do you know about bread making?” presupposes that you know something. Contrast that with “Do you know anything about bread making?” We can note here that questions are usually instructive toward certain answers. This is why people make jokes with questions such as “Why anything?” or “Who cares?” These questions don’t really instruct; they are just expressions of certain feelings. Typically, a question asks the respondent in effect to choose from a number of alternative direct answers. For example, the question “Is it time for dinner yet?” invites the respondent to answer “Yes, it is time for dinner” or “No, it is not time for dinner.” Both questions and both alternative answers assume dinner will be soon.
Consider how “Are you still angry with me?” invites the respondent to answer “Yes, I am still angry with you” or “No, I am not still angry with you.” Both answers imply the proposition in the question is true (I was/am angry with you). Appearing by itself, the question “Are you still angry with me?” is an example of a complex question because the only allowable direct answers to it imply that I was angry with you, which may or may not be true—and in any case, that has not been independently established. Go back to the previous rules of questioning. If the question follows a prior question to which the answer already established that I was angry (rules 4 and 5), then it is a legitimate part of a course of interrogative inquiry. It is not an accident that a complex question is called a “trick question”; asking a trick question violates the rules of interrogative inquiry.
Let’s look at some examples:
Example 1 presupposes that there is an explanation for mental telepathy and merely asks the respondent what that explanation is. Example 2 presupposes you hid the murder weapon. Example 3 assumes everyone buys a Cadillac; they just have to decide when. Going back to the rules of good questioning, recall that these questions in the examples are not given with context. We don’t know if they are building a larger case of inquiry. So let us just say that good critical thinking using questions takes time to establish anything of value. This is why many philosophers and educators hold Socratic questioning7 in such high regard.
19.5 The Fallacy of Special Pleading
The fallacy of special pleading is to apply a double standard, one for ourselves and another for everyone else. It is a special kind of question begging also, since the prejudicial language is just as much about painting the opponent in negative terms as it is to relieve oneself of any negative meaning. Bertrand Russell once illustrated this fallacy by his “conjugation” of the verb to be firm: I am firm; you are stubborn; he is pig-headed. The idea here is that the same behaviour (presumably) is described as “being firm” when I do it, but when others do it, it is stubborn or pig-headed (with apologies to pigs). Why is this a fallacy? Recall our discussion of definitions in Chapter 5. We talk past each other when we have different definitions, but here we are doing so not by accident but for prejudicial reasons.
Special pleading is when we use slanted or loaded language for others’ actions but when we do the same thing we use neutral or positive language.
We’re sure you’ve heard someone say their opponent is harsh and rude while they are just engaging in “real talk.” This is extremely common. But how do we differentiate between being rude and “real talk”? What are the circumstances that differentiate our behaviour, other than our own special interest in not looking bad?
Consider another example: the ruthless tactics of the enemy, his fanatical suicidal attacks, have been foiled by the stern measures of our commanders and the devoted self-sacrifice of our troops. Here, stripped of motive language, we and the enemy are doing exactly the same things, but somehow when we do them, they are great, and when the enemy does them, they are terrible. Good examples of special pleading are easy to find in political speeches, news stories, and political commentaries, which are often aimed less at the truth than at persuasion or self-congratulation.
We have evidence that a double standard is operating when literally correct words are replaced by emotionally charged words that are similar in meaning.
It is a feature of our language that almost every action and human attribute can be referred to in numerous ways, some of which are positive, some negative or neutral.
Consider the following examples:
Neutral | Special pleading |
---|---|
Enterprising plan | Opportunistic scheme |
He smiled engagingly at her. | He leered suggestively at her. |
Reserved | Secretive |
Boisterous group of young fellows | Rowdy gang of juvenile toughs |
Group | Gang |
Consider the numerous double standards involved in sexism. Imagine someone saying, “Teaching is no longer seen as a woman’s job. Teaching is now seen as a tough, exciting place where things are happening.” Here by contrasting a “tough, exciting place where things are happening” with a “woman’s job,” the speaker is appealing to a double standard where what “the men” do is exciting and tough, whereas what “the women” do is not.
Double standards often reflect differences in prestige or power. They often operate covertly and without notice. Indeed, there are usually barriers in place to prevent their notice, especially by those whose advantage they serve. It is convenient for those who are advantaged and powerful not to have to notice double standards, since this saves them the embarrassment of having to justify the advantages they have. Of course, many of our attitudes toward foreign and unfamiliar people, groups, cultures, and religions are grounded in ignorance, or at least limited and stereotypical beliefs, perhaps acquired as children. When thinking about people or customs of whom we have only a superficial knowledge, it is easy to imagine differences that do not exist and apply double standards without knowing it. A certain humility in judgment coupled with a commitment to the truth is probably the best remedy to the danger of applying double standards involuntarily. At the end of the day, double standards distort the facts. Because of that, they pose a very serious threat to the realization of a dialogue (Walton’s criterion 5), which is to inch closer to the truth.
Key Takeaways
- • In the case of the straw person fallacy, an arguer constructs their dialogue partner’s view out of “straw” (to make it easy to knock down), which effectively creates a new person, the “straw person” who is refuted (rather than the original dialogue partner).
- • The fallacy of begging the question is assuming what you intend to, or should be, proving. It is a failure of the support relationship.
- • Question-begging epithets use slanted language that is question begging because it implies what we wish to prove but have not yet proved.
- • The fallacy of complex question is when the arguer asks a question that presupposes the truth of the question at issue.
- • Special pleading is when we use slanted or loaded language for others when we do the same ourselves and use neutral or positive language.
Exercises
Part I. Identifying Fallacies of Evading the Facts
Identify the following fallacies of evading the facts, and explain why they are the particular fallacy you identify and what is wrong with them.
- 1. Of course things like bribery are illegal; if such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by law.
- 2. “The elemental composition of Jupiter is known to be similar to the sun. . . . The core would be composed mainly of iron and silicates, the materials that make up most of the earth’s bulk. Such a core is expected for cosmogenic reasons: If Jupiter’s composition is similar to the sun’s, then the planet should contain a small portion of those elements” (J. Wolfe, “Jupiter,” Scientific American 230, no. 1: 119).
- 3. In the context of an interrogation with no cause of death currently identified: Detective: “Who shot her in the head?”
- 4. I understand you support a government-funded health care system, but we cannot have the government control every aspect of our health.
- 5. I paid my taxes for years, and this year I can’t afford it. So everyone else must pay their taxes so I can take a little tax vacation.
- 6. Joe: That Lefty is a crook.
- Moe: What makes you think that he is?
- Joe: Just look at the crooks he hangs out with.
- Moe: Oh. How do you know that they are crooks?
- Joe: Well, anyone who hangs around a crook like Lefty has just got to be a crook.
- 7. I’m not hoarding. I am only stocking up on everything before the hoarders get it all.
- 8. Alice should get a 95 because she deserves a really high mark.
- 9. I won’t listen to any liberal on gun control. They want to punish legal gun owners, especially those who use guns for subsistence hunting.
- 10. Listen, I know I’m not a doctor or pharmacist, but I know my body, and I can use this medicine without a prescription. Everyone else though needs to consult a doctor.
- 11. Big tax exemptions for wealthy investors are absolutely justified because people who spend large sums of money in the market should be excused from paying large parts of their income tax.
- 12. When will these leaders stop spending money in any way that suits them?
- 13. You can be sure that we will give you an honest deal on a used car, since we will always deal with you in a forthright and honest way when you purchase a used car from us.
- 14. When will you abandon your support of hate speech?
Part II. Fallacy Practice with Explanations
In this group of questions, you are given a choice of four answers for each question. You may find that more than one choice has some merit, but you should identify which answer is the best. Some of the explanations are inaccurate, so make sure the fallacy and the explanation are correct when choosing.
- 1. Objects with a specific gravity less than that of water will float when you put them in water. The reason is that such objects won’t sink in water.
- A. Poisoning the well against people who don’t believe in gravity
- B. Begging the question because it just restates the same claim but uses “the reason that” as though it supports the next claim
- C. Equivocation on the word “gravity”
- D. Appeal to authority because it doesn’t have a qualified expert
- 2. “There has been a major accident, and we have closed this street to regular traffic, so we cannot allow you to drive your ambulance down it.”
- A. Irrelevant thesis because traffic has nothing to do with the accident
- B. Appeal to authority because the ambulance has authority to drive
- C. Sweeping generalization because the fact that the vehicle is an ambulance is a special case that blocks the rule that no traffic is allowed
- D. Hasty generalization because it makes a generalization without enough information
- 3. “Why should I take your pro-vegetarian arguments seriously? You wear a leather belt and leather shoes. You are just a hypocrite.”
- A. Abuse because it is not nice to call someone a hypocrite
- B. Tu quoque because it is dismissing their argument on the basis of an action. It is saying “look who’s talking.”
- C. Appeal to ignorance because it is saying if they don’t wear a leather belt, it is proof of arguments for vegetarianism
- D. Complex question because it is assuming they are wearing a leather belt without really asking
- 4. Students who get help from tutors get lower scores on average than students who don’t; this shows that tutors are a waste of time.
- A. Hasty generalization because not all students who use tutors have lower scores to begin with
- B. False cause spurious correlation because poor ability is the common cause of low grades and needing a tutor
- C. False cause reversing cause and effect because it is the low scores in the first place that are bringing students to use tutors
- D. False cause post hoc because it fails to establish that the students used the tutors before they had low scores
- 5. I got a bad mark on my midterm. I can’t believe it. The material was so easy that there was no point studying. My prof must have just had it in for me.
- A. False cause mere correlation because you don’t know if the prof lowered the grade on purpose
- B. Question-begging epithets because it is slanted against the professor
- C. Appeal to ignorance because you can’t say that it wasn’t the professor
- D. Hasty generalization because it takes a special case (not studying) and generalizes it to being about the professor
- 6. It really doesn’t cost much for the government to pay for the medicare costs of a sick person. It’s just a few thousand dollars a year on average. So medicare can’t be a big factor in the national budget.
- A. Equivocation because “medicare” is being used in two different ways
- B. Hasty generalization because it applies a rule where it shouldn’t apply
- C. Composition because the property of “not costing much” is not compositionally inherited by the whole of the medicare budget
- D. Sweeping generalization because it makes a rule out of an improper case
- 7. Prosecuting attorney in court: “When is the defence attorney planning to call that guilty-as-sin Hunk Beedle to the stand? Okay, I’ll rephrase that. When is the defence attorney planning to call that liar Hunk Beedle to the stand? Sorry, Your Honour. I withdraw my remarks.”
- A. Poisoning the well because it undermines Beedle’s ability to speak
- B. Question-begging epithets because it uses loaded language to assume what it needs to prove
- C. Special pleading because it applies a double standard
- D. Tu quoque because the lawyer did the same thing as Hunk Beedle
- 8. “There are two types of people in this world: the rich and the suckers. Do you want to get rich, or are you happy to remain a sucker?”
- A. Force or fear because it is trying to scare you away from being a sucker
- B. Bifurcation because it confuses contraries with contradictories. There are more ways of being than being a sucker or being rich.
- C. Complex question because it asks a question with an unstated assumption
- D. Appeal to ignorance because it uses negative evidence
- 9. You must believe that God exists. After all, if you do not accept God into your heart, then you will face the horrors of hell.
- A. Appeal to authority because it assumes God decides who goes to hell
- B. Force or fear because it tries to compel belief using fear
- C. Tu quoque because the speaker doesn’t believe in God either
- D. Poisoning the well because it attacks your motives
- 10. Some people argue that sport fishing is wrong because fish can feel pain and they suffer. But that is nonsense. Fishing is a wonderful sport. It’s relaxing and fun for the whole family, and you get to eat what you catch!
- A. Appeal to authority because it appeals to the authority of experiences of relaxing
- B. Poisoning the well because it says the people against it believe in nonsense
- C. Irrelevant thesis because it changes the topic to recreation and doesn’t address the actual argument, which is about pain and suffering
- D. Appeal to ignorance because it suggests that we don’t know that fish feel pain
- 11. My boyfriend just dumped me for another woman. Men are such jerks!
- A. Hasty generalization because it generalizes from a special case
- B. Abuse because it is harmful to name-call
- C. Irrelevant thesis because it changes the topic from a boyfriend to men in general
- D. Appeal to ignorance because it doesn’t prove that men are jerks
- 12. At a certain point, a car gets old enough and breaks down so frequently that it is no longer reasonable to fix it and we junk it. In the same way, when a person gets old and decrepit enough, they should be mercifully put to death.
- A. Abuse because it calls people “old and decrepit”
- B. Appeal to authority because it appeals to the science of mechanics without citing the proper expert
- C. Hasty generalization because it generalizes from the special case of one old person to all
- D. False analogy because it improperly draws an analogy between people and cars where there are important relevant dissimilarities between them
- 13. Don’t even bother to watch the Toronto Maple Leafs this spring. What a bunch of overpaid, under-talented losers!
- A. Abuse because it is simply name-calling
- B. Question-begging epithets because it uses slanted language to support a conclusion instead of proving it
- C. Poisoning the well because now anything the players say won’t be listened to
- D. Force or fear because it threatens to fire the players
- 14. You don’t need to ask Joseph what he thinks about the Liberal Party. You know what he will say—he’s from Alberta.
- A. Hasty generalization because it makes a generalization from one person
- B. Special pleading because it applies a double standard
- C. Slippery slope because it reasons to a disastrous conclusion
- D. Poisoning the well because it uses a person’s identity to undermine their ability to speak
- 15. Every open-minded historian agrees that the Bible is relatively historically accurate and that Jesus actually existed.
- A. Straw person because it characterizes the opponent as having a weaker view than they do
- B. Abuse because it is name-calling
- C. Special pleading because it uses a double standard—the speaker is open minded, but their opponent is not.
- D. Appeal to anonymous authority because it doesn’t name the historian
- 16. This is the way we have always done things. You must teach Descartes in Introduction to Philosophy.
- A. Abuse because it is calling anyone who disagrees unintelligent
- B. Bifurcation because it is saying it is either Descartes or no one
- C. Appeal to tradition because it uses “the way it has always been done” as a reason to continue to do it in the future
- D. Slippery slope because it predicts bad consequences if you don’t teach Descartes
- 17. I wouldn’t expect someone from Saskatchewan to understand the nuances of the film festival. If you are from a bigger city like us, it is possible to really understand all of the cultured ideals.
- A. Abuse because it is name-calling someone from Saskatchewan
- B. Snob appeal because it is using a sense of superiority to dismiss the other viewpoint
- C. False cause (mere correlation) because it just so happens they are from Saskatchewan; it is not the cause of their understanding of the films.
- D. Straw person because it gives a weak characterization of people from Saskatchewan
Part III. Using Fallacy Definitions (Multiple Choice with Fill in the Blank)
Here is a group of questions where you have a choice of four answers for each question. Fill in the blank for each explanation of the definition, and then identify which answer is the best.
- 1. We need to give the criminals who use violence in committing their crimes especially long sentences because it is the violent criminals who must be incarcerated the longest.
- A. Equivocation because it _______ the meaning of the word
- B. Begging the question because it just restates the premise instead of _______ the conclusion
- C. Force or fear because it uses _______ to force agreement
- D. Poisoning the well because it uses a person’s _______ to undermine their ability to speak
- 2. It doesn’t seem that there is any room for debate here. Either we start selling cigarettes to boost our profit margin, or we drift into bankruptcy when we can’t pay our bills. So which would you prefer?
- A. Slippery slope because it uses a _______ consequence to try to force agreement
- B. Force or fear because it uses _______ to try to force agreement
- C. False analogy because it ignores _______ differences between profits and cigarettes
- D. Bifurcation because it confuses _______ with contradictories
- 3. You wonder which of us to vote for, me or my opponent? It is, of course, a weighty question of public morality, but I ask you to consider that at least I have remained faithful to my spouse.
- A. Two wrongs make a right because it is suggesting that it is _______ to cheat if they both do
- B. Bifurcation because it confuses _______ with contradictories
- C. Appeal to ignorance because it uses the opponent’s inability to _______ as proof of its truth
- D. Accent because it relies upon an ambiguity that comes from _______ a particular word
- 4. Buses use much more gasoline than automobiles, so the proposal that we all take the bus to work instead of driving a car is completely irresponsible. We would use so much more gas if we did that.
- A. Hasty generalization because it uses an improper case from which to build a _______
- B. Appeal to ignorance because it uses the opponents inability to _______ as proof of its truth
- C. Division because it improperly reasons from the property of a whole (all buses) to the property of a _______
- D. Composition because it improperly reasons from the property of a part to the property of a whole _______ (all buses)
- 5. Is psychology still teaching that outdated nonsense about the effectiveness of electroshock therapy?
- A. Appeal to authority because it does not offer the specific _______ of the speaker
- B. Question-begging epithets because it uses _______ language to assume what it needs to _______
- C. Appeal to ignorance because it uses the opponent’s inability to _______ as proof of its truth
- D. Complex question because it asks a question where the answer presumes the _______ of the claim
- 6. Look, you don’t need to take Father Bob’s remarks about gay marriage seriously. He’s a priest. He has to be against it or he gets in trouble with the church.
- A. Tu quoque because it points out a past action of Father Bob’s to _______ his ability to speak
- B. Begging the question because it _______ what it is supposed to prove
- C. Poisoning the well because it uses a person’s _______ to undermine their ability to speak
- D. Appeal to tradition because it uses the way _______ (four little words) in the past as a reason to continue to do it in the future
- 7. Yes, my client was drunk when he crashed into the telephone pole, but his car was totalled, and he was severely injured. He’s been in the hospital for months and will be injured for life. Surely he deserves something for his pain and suffering. I’m asking you of the jury to help him with a judgement against the power company for putting that pole so close to the street.
- A. Hasty generalization because it generalizes from a special _______ to a rule
- B. Weak analogy because it ignores _______ differences between the two things being compared
- C. (False cause) Spurious correlation because something else might have been the _______ of both the pole being there and the drunk driving
- D. Sweeping generalization because it applies a rule to a special _______ where it does not apply
- 8. An intelligent and well-read person like you shouldn’t have any difficulty understanding how reasonable and important it is to support our town’s school budget in the referendum.
- A. Straw person because it uses a _______ characterization to refute the claim
- B. Appeal to authority because it appeals to an expert without establishing whether they have the relevant _______
- C. Two wrongs make a right because it is using the fact that the other person would do the _______ thing as reason to prove their conclusion
- D. Mob appeal because it uses flattery and appeals to _______ interest to motivate belief
- 9. Silken Laumann eats Wheaties. Catriona Le May Doan eats Wheaties. Myriam Bédard eats Wheaties. These women are major athletes! You should eat Wheaties too.
- A. Appeal to authority because it appeals to an expert without establishing whether they have the relevant _______
- B. Hasty generalization because it builds a rule from a _______ case
- C. Appeal to tradition because it uses the way _______ (four little words) in the past as a reason to continue to do it in the future
- D. Begging the question because it _______ what it is supposed to prove
- 10. In Toronto, it has been found that there is a significant correlation between the number of fire trucks spraying water on a fire and the financial losses due to the fire. The extra trucks clearly make the damage worse.
- A. (False cause) Spurious correlation because the extent of the fire causes both the number of trucks and the significant losses
- B. (False cause) Mere correlation because there is not enough evidence to prove that the trucks caused the losses
- C. Sweeping generalization because it doesn’t pay attention to the relevant differences between fire trucks and other trucks
- D. Appeal to anonymous authority because it says that “some people are saying” this, but it doesn’t name who is making the claim.
- 11. The University of Saskatchewan is a great university. So if you want to study philosophy, this university is a great place to study.
- A. Division because it improperly reasons from the property of a whole (university) to the property of a _______
- B. Composition because it improperly reasons from the property of a part to the property of a whole _______ (university)
- C. Appeal to authority because it appeals to an expert without establishing whether they have the relevant _______
- D. Irrelevant thesis because it _______ from the main issue
- 12. Don’t let worry kill you off—let the church help.
- A. Abuse because it uses _______ calling
- B. Appeal to authority because it appeals to an expert without establishing whether they have the relevant _______
- C. Appeal to anonymous authority because it says that “some people are saying” this, but it doesn’t name who is making the claim.
- D. Amphiboly because it contains a _______ ambiguity
- 13. Now that hockey is back on television, we will once again have to watch those pathetic pretenders, Nik Antropov and Matts Sundin, and the rest of the Toronto Maple Leafs losers.
- A. Abuse because it uses _______ calling
- B. Question-begging epithets because it uses _______ language to prove what has not yet been proved
- C. Appeal to ignorance because it uses the opponent’s inability to _______ as a reason their view is true
- D. Amphiboly because it contains a _______ ambiguity
- 14. My professor Eric Dayton is always spouting off about superstition and obviously is an atheist. I had better keep quiet about my religious beliefs so he won’t be tempted to fail me.
- A. Hasty generalization because it builds a rule (about atheists) from a _______ case
- B. Force or fear appeal to _______ as a reason to believe a claim
- C. Appeal to authority because it appeals to an expert without establishing whether they have the relevant _______
- D. Irrelevant thesis because it _______ from the main issue
- 15. The Globe and Mail says that Toronto is a much more expensive place to live than Thunder Bay. But Toronto is a great place to live. It has great restaurants, live music, museums, and of course it has the Blue Jays and the Maple Leafs. The Globe and Mail is all wrong.
- A. Appeal to authority because it appeals to an expert without establishing whether they have the relevant _______
- B. Poisoning the well because it uses a person’s _______ to undermine their ability to speak
- C. Irrelevant thesis because it _______ from the main issue
- D. Appeal to ignorance because it uses the opponent’s inability to _______ as a reason their view is true
- 16. Organic farming is superior because it is natural.
- A. Appeal to nature because it assumes that just because something is _______ it is therefore superior
- B. Begging the question because it _______ what it is supposed to prove
- C. Poisoning the well because it uses a person’s _______ to undermine their ability to speak
- D. Appeal to tradition because it uses the way _______ (four little words) in the past as a reason to continue to do it in the future
- 17. Using renewable energy is superior for the economy because it is more natural than using fossil fuels.
- A. Appeal to nature because it assumes that just because something is _______ it is therefore superior
- B. Begging the question because it _______ what it is supposed to prove
- C. Poisoning the well because it uses a person’s _______ to undermine their ability to speak
- D. Appeal to tradition because it uses the way _______ (four little words) in the past as a reason to continue to do it in the future
- 18. If we allow automation to replace human workers, it will lead to massive job losses, economic collapse, and the end of the family as we know it.
- A. Appeal to nature because it assumes that just because something is _______ it is therefore superior
- B. Slippery slope because it argues that one event must _______ follow from another without argument that the event is inevitable
- C. Irrelevant thesis because it _______ from the main issue
- D. Appeal to ignorance because it uses the opponent’s inability to _______ as a reason their view is true
We use cookies to analyze our traffic. Please decide if you are willing to accept cookies from our website. You can change this setting anytime in Privacy Settings.