5 Written questions
5 Matching questions
- Straw Man
- False Dichotomy
- Appeal to Pity
- Weak Analogy
- Hasty Generalization
- a an informal fallacy that is committed when an arguer presents two non-jointly exhaustive alternatives as if they were jointly exhaustive and then eliminates one, leaving the other as the conclusion
- b an informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on an analogy (or similarity) that is not strong enough to support enough to support the conclusion
- c A logical fallacy that involves the creation of an easily refutable position; misrepresenting, then attacking an opponent's position.
- d arguer attempts to support conclusion by merely evoking pity.
- e Draws a conclusion about a population based on a small sample (jumping to conclusions).
5 Multiple choice questions
- "to the stick" implied harm if person does not accept the conclusion, threat is logically irrelevant
- an informal fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the misinterpretation of a statement that is ambiguous owing to some structural defect
- general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover
- cited witness lacks credibility, there are some areas in which no one can be considered an authority, politics, morals, and religion
- an informal fallacy that occurs when a single question that is really two or more questions is asked, and a single answer is applied to both questions
5 True/False questions
Red Herring → A fallacy that introduces an irrelevant issue to divert attention from the subject under discussion
False Cause → Wrongly assumes a cause-and-effect relationship ('A' causes 'B' without proof that a relationship actually exists).
Suppressed Evidence → "to the stick" implied harm if person does not accept the conclusion, threat is logically irrelevant
Appeal to Ignorance → Assumption that whatever cannot be proven false must be true (or vice versa). "No one can prove that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, so therefore, it does exist."
Argument Against the Person → arguer criticizes the person rather than the argument