Quiz
Informal Logic Fallacies Exam
Erstelle ein kostenloses Konto, um dieses Quiz zu beenden
Speichere deinen Fortschritt und sieh dir dein Endergebnis an.
oder mit deiner E-Mail registrieren
Schon ein Konto? Anmelden
Fragen in diesem Quiz (29)
1Reification means what?
- AWithin an argument some irrelevant issue is raised, which diverts attention from the subject
- BGiving a concrete characteristic to something that is abstract
- CThinking because X derives from Y, and Y has certain properties, X must have said properties.
2Inferring that A must be the cause of B, because A is followed by B
- APost hoc, ergo propter hoc
- BAd Hominem
- CSlippery Slope
3The truth of a claim is established only on the basis of lack of evidence against it
- ABorderline Example
- BHast Generalization
- CAppeal to Ignorance
4Genetic Fallacy means what?
- AThinking that because X derives from Y, and Y has certain properties, X must have said properties
- BPresenting a limited set of alternatives when there are others to consider
- CAssumption is made to take some independent statistic and make it dependent
5Loaded Question
- AAsserting a generalization on lack of evidence
- BA question is posed in such a way that no matter what answer given, the person will inevitable commit to some other claim
- CIn arguing for a claim, the claim itself is already assumed in the premise
6The whole is assumed to have the same properties as its parts
- AComparison
- BEquivocation
- CDivision
7In offering an argument, pity is appealed to
- AAppeal to Ignorance
- BAd Hominem
- CAppeal to Pity
8Straw Man
- AInferring that Q is false, because if P is true, Q is also true. But P is false.
- BInferring that P is true solely because Q is true and it's also true that if P is true Q is true
- CAttacking an opponent in such a way that is easily defeated when it is not actually the opponents position
9Propostion
- AWhen you ignore the evidence given
- BA statement which can be affirmed or denied
- CAn argument leading to a conclusion, which is supported by two premises. The major, which contains the predicate and the minor which contains the subject
10Assumption is made to take some independent statistics as dependent
- AFalse Dilemma
- BGamblers Fallacy
- CLexical Ambiguity
11Putting forward an argument where a word changes meaning without having it pointed out.
- ADivision
- BEquivocation
- CHast Generalization
12Attacking the person making a claim instead of attacking the persons reasons for the claim
- AAffirming the Consequent
- BAffirming the Antecedent
- CAd Hominem
13A process of reasoning which the conclusion, while supported by the premise, does not follow it.
- AInductive Reasoning
- BNon-Sequitur
- CDeductive Reasoning
14Illustrating Example
- ABorderline Example
- BParadigm Example
- CAppeal to Popularity
15Deductive Reasoning
- AA process of reasoning in which the conclusion, while supported by the premise, doe not follow it
- BThe part of a whole is assumed to have the same properties of the whole
- CA process of reasoning in which a conclusions follows from the premise
16Inferring that P is true solely because Q is true and it is also true that if P is true Q is true
- ABorderline Example
- BDenying the Antecedent
- CAffirming the Consequent
17Denying the Antecedent
- AInferring that Q is false because if P is true, Q is also true, but P is false
- BIn arguing for a claim, the claim itself is already assumed in the premise
- CInferring that P is true solely because Q is true and it is also true that if P is true Q is true
18When you ignore the evidence given
- ADivision
- BSuppressed Evidence
- CSyllogism
19The parts of a whole is assumed to have the same properties as the whole
- AHasty Generalization
- BDivision
- CComposition
20Syllogism
- AAn argument leading to a conclusion, which has two premises. The major which contains the predicate. The minor which contains the subject.
- BPresenting limited set of alternatives when there are others worth considering
- CArguing that if an opponent were to Claim 1, they would have to accept Claim 2, leading them to believe Claim 3, which has an absurd conclusion.
21Begging the question
- AIn arguing for a claim the claim itself is already assumed in the premise
- BArguing that if an opponent were to Claim 1, they would have to accept Claim 2, leading them to believe Claim 3, which has an absurd conclusion.
- CWithin an argument some irrelevant issue is raised which diverts attention from the subject
22Arguing that if an opponent were to Claim 1, they would have to accept Claim 2, leading them to believe Claim 3, which has an absurd conclusion.
- ANon-Sequitur
- BFalse Dilemma
- CSlippery Slope
23Choose a way that favors the audiences desires
- AAppeal to Ignorance
- BAppeal to Pity
- CAppeal to Popularity
24Hasty generalization
- AWhen there are two or more possible meaning within a single word
- BPresenting a limited set of alternatives when there are others worth considering
- CAsserting a generalization on the basis of insufficient evidence
25Used to clarify the limits of a concepts applicability
- ABorderline Example
- BRed Herring
- CLexical Ambiguity
26Presenting a limited set of alternatives when there are others worth considering in the context
- ALexical Ambiguity
- BFalse Dilemma
- CNon-Sequitur
27Red Herring
- AA conclusion is drawn which does not follow the premise
- BWithin an argument some irrelevant issue is raised which divert attention from the subject
- CWhen there are two possible meanings for a single word
28A conclusion is drawn that does not follow the premise
- AInductive Reasoning
- BDenying the Antecedent
- CNon-Sequitur
29When there are two possible meanings to a single word
- ALexical Ambiguity
- BReification
- CRed Herring
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Quiz am Informal Logic Fallacies Exam, erstellt von kaylakring am 08/12/2014.
- Autor
- kaylakring
- Sprache
- English
- Aufrufe
- 4
- Schlagwörter
- Bewertung
- Noch keine Bewertungen Bewerte dieses Quiz