1.

Scope of Logic

Mental Process Verbal

Expression

Simple Term
Apprehension

Judgment Proposition

Reasoning Syllogism

● Simple apprehension leads to generating ideas and expressing them as terms.

● Judgment involves determining the agreement or disagreement between two

ideas, expressed through propositions.

● Reasoning is the logical connection of propositions, forming a syllogism.

2. Judgments

● Definition: Judgment is a mental process in which the mind compares two ideas
to decide if they agree or disagree.

○ Example: "James is a teacher" (agreement) vs. "A cat is not a plant"

(disagreement).

● Truth and Reality: Judgments should reflect reality. If the judgment aligns with
reality (e.g., a black cat is black), it is considered true; otherwise, it's false.

● Aristotle's Definition of Truth: Truth is the conformity of a judgment with reality.

3. Propositions

● Definition: A proposition is a declarative statement affirming or denying

something.

○ Categorical Propositions: These propositions express direct agreement

or disagreement between a subject and a predicate.

○ Structure: Composed of a subject, predicate, and copula.

■ Subject: The topic (e.g., All surgeons).

■ Predicate: What is affirmed or denied about the subject (e.g.,

doctors).

■ Copula: Shows the relationship between subject and predicate

(e.g., are or are not).
4. Quantifiers in Propositions

Universal Particular
Quantifiers Quantifiers

All, Every Some, Most

● Universal Quantifiers apply to the entire subject class.

● Particular Quantifiers apply to part of the subject class.

5. Types of Categorical Propositions

Categorical propositions vary by quantity (universal or particular) and quality

(affirmative or negative).

Type Example

Universal Affirmative All men are mortal.

(A)

Universal Negative (E) No men are

immortal.

Particular Affirmative (I) Some men are tall.

Particular Negative (O) Some men are not

tall.

6. Reducing Propositions to Logical Form (S-C-P)

To make the structure of a proposition clearer, reword it to follow the

Subject-Copula-Predicate (S-C-P) structure.

Original Logical Form

Statement

Ivan writes Ivan is a writer of

editorials. editorials.

The girl sings. The girl is singing.

7. Key Takeaways

● Categorical propositions have a consistent structure: S-C-P (Subject, Copula,

Predicate).

● Being conscious of this logical form aids in clarity and accuracy when
constructing or analyzing arguments.

Syllogistic Figures and Moods

In syllogistic logic, each categorical syllogism has a specific figure and mood based on
the structure and type of propositions it includes.

Figures in Syllogisms

The figure depends on the position of the middle term in the premises, determining the
argument's structure:

Figure Major Premise Minor Example

(1st Premise (2nd
Proposition) Proposition)

Figure 1 M–P S–M All humans are mortal. Socrates is

(Sub-Pre) a human. Therefore, Socrates is
mortal.

Figure 2 P–M S–M All scientists are logical. All

(Pre-Pre) mathematicians are logical.
Therefore, all mathematicians are
scientists.

Figure 3 M–P M–S All dogs are mammals. All dogs are
(Sub-Sub) pets. Therefore, some pets are
mammals.

Figure 4 P–M M–S All plants are living things. All living
(Pre-Sub) things are necessary. Therefore, all
necessary beings are plants.

Each figure requires different logical structures and affects the argument’s logical form.

Moods in Syllogisms

The mood of a syllogism is defined by the types of propositions it contains:

● A (Universal Affirmative): "All S are P"

● E (Universal Negative): "No S are P"

 ● I (Particular Affirmative): "Some S are P"

● O (Particular Negative): "Some S are not P"

By combining figure and mood, we determine the validity of a syllogism. Some valid
forms include:

Mood-Figure Example
Combination

AAA-1 (Barbara) All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore,

Socrates is mortal.

EAE-1 (Celarent) No dogs are cats. All bulldogs are dogs. Therefore, no
bulldogs are cats.

AII-1 (Darii) All humans are mortal. Some men are humans. Therefore,
some men are mortal.

EIO-1 (Ferio) No cats are dogs. Some pets are cats. Therefore, some pets
are not dogs.

Key Concepts in Categorical Logic

Concept Definition

Class A group of objects.

Categorical Relates two classes of objects.

Proposition

Subject Term The term that comes first in a standard-form categorical

proposition.

Predicate Term The term that comes second in a standard-form categorical

proposition.

A-proposition Universal Affirmative: "All S are P".

I-proposition Particular Affirmative: "Some S are P".

E-proposition Universal Negative: "No S are P".

O-proposition Particular Negative: "Some S are not P".

Universal An A-proposition asserting every member of the subject class is

Affirmative in the predicate class.

Universal An E-proposition asserting no members of the subject class are

Negative in the predicate class.

Particular An I-proposition asserting that at least one member of the

Affirmative subject class is in the predicate class.

Particular An O-proposition asserting that at least one member of the

Negative subject class is not in the predicate class.

Quantifier Words like "all," "no," and "some" that define the scope of
inclusion or exclusion in a proposition.

Copula The terms "are" or "are not" connecting subject and predicate
classes.

Distributed A term that makes an assertion about every member of a class

(as in universal propositions).

Undistributed A term that does not make an assertion about every member of
a class (as in particular propositions).

Opposition The relationship between propositions with the same subject and
predicate classes but differing in quality/quantity.

Contradictories Pairs of propositions where one is the direct negation of the

other.

Contraries Pairs that cannot both be true, but can both be false.

Subcontraries Pairs that cannot both be false, but can both be true. If one is
false, the other must be true.

Subalternation The relationship between a universal proposition (superaltern)

and its corresponding particular proposition (subaltern).

Immediate An argument with only one premise.

Argument
Mediate An argument with more than one premise.
Argument

Singular A proposition asserting something about a specific entity.

Proposition

1. Mental Processes in Logic

● Simple Apprehension: Understanding an idea; verbalized as a Term.

● Judgment: Relating ideas to affirm or deny; verbalized as a Proposition.

● Reasoning: Drawing new conclusions from judgments; verbalized as a

Syllogism.

2. Structure of Reasoning with Syllogisms

● Reasoning: The mental process of connecting propositions to derive new

truths (conclusions).

● Premises: Known truths or propositions that support the conclusion.

● Inference: Process of deriving a conclusion from one or more premises.

3. Basic Structure of a Categorical Syllogism

● Categorical Syllogism: An argument with exactly three categorical

propositions (two premises and one conclusion).

● Terms in Syllogism:

○ Major Term: Predicate of the conclusion; appears in the major premise.

○ Minor Term: Subject of the conclusion; appears in the minor premise.

○ Middle Term: Connects the major and minor terms; appears in both
premises but not the conclusion.

4. Rules of Categorical Syllogism

● Rule 1: Only three terms (major, minor, middle).

● Rule 2: Each term appears twice.

● Rule 3: Major and minor terms universal in the conclusion only if universal in
premises.
 ● Rule 4: Middle term must be universal at least once.

● Rule 5: Both premises affirmative = affirmative conclusion.

● Rule 6: One premise negative = negative conclusion.

● Rule 7: Both premises negative = no conclusion.

● Rule 8: At least one universal premise.

● Rule 9: Particular premise = particular conclusion.

5. Logical Forms: Moods and Figures

● Mood: Arrangement of premises by quality (affirmative/negative) and quantity

(universal/particular).

● Figure: Positioning of the middle term in the premises, classified into:

○ Figure 1: Middle term as subject in the major premise, predicate in the

minor.

○ Figure 2: Middle term as predicate in both premises.

○ Figure 3: Middle term as subject in both premises.

○ Figure 4: Middle term as predicate in the major, subject in the minor.

Comprehensive Review of Lesson 7: Fallacies

Overview of Fallacies

In logical reasoning, a fallacy refers to an error in reasoning that leads to invalid

arguments, often obscuring the truth. It is essential to recognize these fallacies to
ensure clarity and credibility in debates, discussions, and arguments.

Key Concepts

Key Term Definition

Fallacy A defect in an argument arising from mistakes in reasoning.

Premise A statement in an argument that supports the conclusion.

Conclusi The statement that the premises intend to support.

on

Relevanc A measure of the logical connection between premises and

e conclusion.
Types of Fallacies

1. Fallacies of Relevance

These fallacies occur when the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. They often
rely on emotional appeals instead of logical support.

A. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum)

This fallacy involves threatening the opponent to accept a conclusion. For instance:

● Child Example: "If you don’t agree that Sesame Street is the best show, my
brother will beat you up."

● Adult Example: "Senator, you support our bill, or the press will find out about
your KKK contributions."

While these threats may coerce assent, they provide no real evidence to support the
conclusion.

B. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)

This fallacy attempts to win acceptance by eliciting sympathy rather than logical
evidence.

● Example: "I declared too many dependents on my taxes, but if found guilty, my
family will suffer."

This argument manipulates emotional responses instead of presenting factual grounds

for innocence.

C. Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)

The arguer appeals to the desires of the audience, either directly or indirectly, seeking
acceptance through popular sentiments.

● Direct Approach Example: A speaker incites enthusiasm to rally crowd support.

● Indirect Approach Example: "Everyone is on a low-carb diet; you should be

too."

D. Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)

Instead of addressing the argument, this fallacy attacks the opponent's character or
circumstances.
 ● Ad Hominem Abusive Example: "Bill Maher’s views are invalid because he’s
rude."

● Ad Hominem Circumstantial Example: "The Dalai Lama's argument about

Tibet is self-serving."

● Tu Quoque Example: "How can Kim Kardashian speak out against motherhood
when she had a child out of wedlock?"

2. Other Relevant Fallacies

E. Accident

This fallacy occurs when a general rule is misapplied to a specific case that it does not
apply to.

● Example: "Freedom of speech means John Q. Radical cannot be arrested for

inciting a riot."

This reasoning ignores specific circumstances that exempt the case from the general
rule.

F. Straw Man

The arguer distorts an opponent's argument and then attacks the distorted version
rather than the actual argument.

● Example: "Mr. Goldberg’s opposition to school prayer means he’s promoting a

Soviet-style atheism."

This fallacy misrepresents the original argument, making it easier to attack.

G. Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)

This fallacy occurs when the premises support a different conclusion from the one
drawn.

● Example: "Robbery is increasing; thus, we must reinstate the death penalty."

The premises suggest alternative approaches rather than a drastic measure like
reinstating capital punishment.

H. Red Herring

This fallacy diverts attention away from the argument by introducing a new but irrelevant
topic.
 ● Example: "Nuclear power is dangerous, but electrocution is also an issue."

This changes the conversation away from the original argument about nuclear power.

Summary Table of Fallacies

Fallacy Type Definition Example

Appeal to Uses threats or coercion to "Agree with me or else!"

Force support a conclusion

Appeal to Evokes sympathy to "I won't get a job if you

Pity persuade convict me!"

Appeal to the Appeals to crowd emotions "Everyone is doing

People for support low-carb, so should you!"

Argument Attacks the person rather "You can't trust him; he's a
Against the than addressing the bad person."
Person argument

Accident Misapplies a general rule to "He has free speech rights;

a specific case that doesn’t he can incite a riot."
fit

Straw Man Distorts an opponent’s "You want to ban books;

argument and attacks the that's censorship!"
flawed version

Missing the Draws a conclusion that "Crime is rising; that means

Point does not logically follow from we should have the death
the premises penalty."

Red Herring Diverts attention by "Nuclear power is

changing the subject dangerous, but what about
crime?"

Conclusion

Awareness of these fallacies is critical for maintaining logical rigor in discussions and
debates. By identifying these errors in reasoning, individuals can critically assess the
validity of arguments presented to them and construct stronger, more persuasive
arguments themselves. Understanding fallacies not only enhances logical reasoning
skills but also improves the ability to communicate effectively and persuasively.
Exam: Fallacies (20 Items)

Directions: For each statement, select the type of fallacy that best describes the example.
Choose the correct answer from the options provided.

1. "If you don’t give me a good grade, I’ll tell everyone you’re a terrible teacher."
○ A. Appeal to Pity
○ B. Appeal to Force
○ C. Appeal to Popularity
○ D. Red Herring
2. Correct Answer: B. Appeal to Force
Explanation: This is an Appeal to Force because it uses a threat to influence the
teacher’s decision. It is not an Appeal to Pity, as it does not invoke sympathy, nor
an Appeal to Popularity, as it does not rely on majority opinion. Red Herring is
incorrect, as it does not divert the topic.

2. "You shouldn’t listen to her opinion on environmental issues; she’s not a

scientist."
○ A. Ad Hominem (Abusive)
○ B. Red Herring
○ C. Ad Hominem (Circumstantial)
○ D. Straw Man
3. Correct Answer: C. Ad Hominem (Circumstantial)
Explanation: This is an Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) fallacy because it
dismisses the person’s opinion based on their lack of qualifications rather than
addressing the argument. It’s not Abusive, as it doesn’t insult her character
directly, nor Red Herring or Straw Man, as it doesn’t change the topic or distort
the argument.

3. "No one has ever proven that aliens don’t exist, so they must be real."
○ A. Appeal to Pity
○ B. Appeal to Ignorance
○ C. Hasty Generalization
○ D. Red Herring
4. Correct Answer: B. Appeal to Ignorance
Explanation: This is an Appeal to Ignorance, assuming that because there’s no
evidence against aliens, they must exist. It’s not an Appeal to Pity or a Red
Herring, as neither sympathy nor topic diversion is involved. Hasty Generalization
is incorrect as it does not generalize from insufficient data.

4. "Everybody is investing in cryptocurrency these days; you should too!"

○ A. Straw Man
○ B. Appeal to Popularity
○ C. Missing the Point
 ○ D. Appeal to Authority
5. Correct Answer: B. Appeal to Popularity
Explanation: This is an Appeal to Popularity, suggesting that one should invest
simply because it’s a popular choice. It’s not a Straw Man or Appeal to Authority,
as it doesn’t misrepresent an argument or rely on an authority figure. Missing the
Point is incorrect, as the conclusion does relate to the premise.

5. "I failed my math test because my teacher dislikes me."

○ A. Ad Hominem (Abusive)
○ B. Appeal to Ignorance
○ C. False Cause
○ D. Appeal to Pity
6. Correct Answer: C. False Cause
Explanation: This is a False Cause fallacy, attributing failure to the teacher’s
feelings rather than academic performance. It’s not Ad Hominem, as it doesn’t
attack the teacher, nor Appeal to Ignorance or Pity, as it doesn’t involve a lack of
evidence or emotional appeal for sympathy.

6. "He says that we should invest in healthcare, but he’s been bankrupt before, so
why should we trust him?"
○ A. Appeal to Authority
○ B. Ad Hominem (Abusive)
○ C. Straw Man
○ D. Appeal to Force
7. Correct Answer: B. Ad Hominem (Abusive)
Explanation: This is Ad Hominem (Abusive) because it attacks the person’s
character rather than the argument. It’s not Appeal to Authority, as no authority
figure is cited, nor Straw Man or Appeal to Force, as it doesn’t misrepresent the
argument or use a threat.

7. "I don’t care if it’s bad for my health; everyone in my family smokes, so I will too."
○ A. Appeal to Tradition
○ B. Appeal to Pity
○ C. Appeal to Ignorance
○ D. Ad Hominem
8. Correct Answer: A. Appeal to Tradition
Explanation: This is an Appeal to Tradition, justifying smoking based on family
tradition. It’s not Pity or Ignorance, as neither sympathy nor lack of evidence is
involved. Ad Hominem is incorrect, as it doesn’t attack anyone’s character.

8. "You can’t support animal rights and eat meat!"

○ A. Red Herring
○ B. Appeal to Authority
 ○ C. Tu Quoque
○ D. Straw Man
9. Correct Answer: C. Tu Quoque
Explanation: This is Tu Quoque, accusing someone of hypocrisy. It’s not Red
Herring, Authority, or Straw Man, as it doesn’t distract from the argument, appeal
to authority, or misrepresent the stance.

9. "If we let students redo assignments, they’ll expect to redo every test and
project!"
○ A. Appeal to Ignorance
○ B. Red Herring
○ C. Slippery Slope
○ D. Hasty Generalization
10. Correct Answer: C. Slippery Slope
Explanation: This is a Slippery Slope, assuming a minor allowance will lead to
extreme outcomes. It’s not Ignorance, Red Herring, or Hasty Generalization, as it
doesn’t rely on lack of evidence, divert topics, or make a broad assumption.

10. "You should be vegan because all the smartest people are going vegan."
○ A. Hasty Generalization
○ B. Appeal to Pity
○ C. Appeal to Authority
○ D. Ad Hominem
11. Correct Answer: C. Appeal to Authority
Explanation: This is an Appeal to Authority, using the actions of "smartest
people" to justify veganism. It’s not Generalization, Pity, or Ad Hominem, as it
doesn’t generalize from a small sample, evoke sympathy, or attack character.

Here's a comprehensive table to help you identify the syllogism figure and mood, along
with explanations for the terms involved. The table has three columns: Figure, Mood,
and Explanation.

Figure Mood Explanation

Figure 1 A-A-A Major Premise: All M are P

(Sub-Pre)
Minor Premise: All S are M

Conclusion: All S are P

Explanation: The middle term (M) is the subject in the major

premise and the predicate in the minor premise.
Figure 1 A-I-I Major Premise: All M are P

Minor Premise: Some S are M

Conclusion: Some S are P

Explanation: The middle term (M) is used similarly as above,

and the conclusion affirms a particular relationship between S
and P.

Figure 1 E-A-E Major Premise: No M are P

Minor Premise: All S are M

Conclusion: No S are P

Explanation: Here, the conclusion also denies a universal

relationship.

Figure 1 E-I-O Major Premise: No M are P

Minor Premise: Some S are M

Conclusion: Some S are not P

Explanation: This uses a negative premise to derive a

particular negative conclusion.

Figure 2 A-A-E Major Premise: All P are M

(Pre-Pre)
Minor Premise: All Q are M

Conclusion: No Q are P

Explanation: The middle term is the predicate in both

premises, leading to a negative conclusion.

Figure 2 A-I-O Major Premise: All P are M

Minor Premise: Some Q are M

Conclusion: Some Q are not P

Explanation: This shows a particular conclusion based on

universal premises.

Figure 2 E-O- Major Premise: No P are M

E
Minor Premise: Some Q are not M

Conclusion: No Q are P
 Explanation: Here, both premises lead to a negative
conclusion.

Figure 2 E-I-O Major Premise: No P are M

Minor Premise: Some Q are M

Conclusion: Some Q are not P

Explanation: Negative premise leading to a particular negative

conclusion.

Figure 3 A-A-I Major Premise: All M are P

(Sub-Sub)
Minor Premise: All M are S

Conclusion: Some S are P

Explanation: The middle term is the subject in both premises.

Figure 3 A-I-I Major Premise: All M are P

Minor Premise: Some M are S

Conclusion: Some S are P

Explanation: Affirmative conclusion derived from affirmative

premises.

Figure 3 E-O- Major Premise: No M are P

O
Minor Premise: Some M are S

Conclusion: Some S are not P

Explanation: Negative conclusion derived from the premises.

Figure 3 I-I-O Major Premise: Some M are P

Minor Premise: Some M are S

Conclusion: Some S are not P

Explanation: Uses particular premises to derive a negative

conclusion.

Figure 4 A-A-I Major Premise: All P are M

(Pre-Sub)
Minor Premise: All M are S

Conclusion: Some S are P

 Explanation: Middle term as a predicate in the major premise
and subject in the minor.

Figure 4 A-E-E Major Premise: All P are M

Minor Premise: No M are S

Conclusion: No S are P

Explanation: Here, the conclusion affirms a universal negative.

Figure 4 E-I-O Major Premise: No P are M

Minor Premise: Some S are M

Conclusion: Some S are not P

Explanation: Negative major premise leads to a particular

negative conclusion.

Figure 4 I-I-O Major Premise: Some P are M

Minor Premise: Some S are M

Conclusion: Some S are not P

Explanation: Uses particular premises to derive a negative

conclusion.

Key Definitions

● Major Term (T): The predicate of the conclusion; the term that appears in the
conclusion.
● Minor Term (t): The subject of the conclusion; the term that appears in the
conclusion as the subject.
● Middle Term (M): The term that appears in both premises but not in the
conclusion; it links the major and minor terms.

Figure Explanations

● Figure 1 (Sub-Pre): The middle term is the subject of the major premise and the
predicate of the minor premise. This arrangement tends to produce valid
syllogisms and often leads to a straightforward conclusion.
● Figure 2 (Pre-Pre): The middle term serves as the predicate in both premises.
This structure can lead to valid conclusions that deny a relationship between the
minor and major terms.
● Figure 3 (Sub-Sub): The middle term is the subject of both premises. This figure
can also produce valid conclusions but often requires careful analysis of the
relationships expressed in the premises.
 ● Figure 4 (Pre-Sub): The middle term is the predicate of the major premise and
the subject of the minor premise. This structure can create valid syllogisms with
both affirmative and negative conclusions.

Comprehensive Review of Lesson 7: Fallacies

1. What is a fallacy?
A) A valid argument
B) A defect in reasoning
C) A strong conclusion
D) An irrelevant premise
Correct Answer: B) A defect in reasoning
Explanation: A fallacy refers to an error in reasoning that can lead to invalid
arguments.
2. What is a premise?
A) A statement that supports the conclusion
B) The conclusion of an argument
C) An irrelevant statement
D) An emotional appeal
Correct Answer: A) A statement that supports the conclusion
Explanation: A premise provides the foundation or support for the conclusion in
an argument.
3. What is a conclusion?
A) The evidence in an argument
B) The statement that the premises intend to support
C) A statement that introduces an argument
D) A statement that is irrelevant
Correct Answer: B) The statement that the premises intend to support
Explanation: The conclusion is derived from the premises and summarizes the
argument’s intended message.
4. What does relevance refer to in logical reasoning?
A) The quality of being persuasive
B) The logical connection between premises and conclusion
C) The number of premises in an argument
D) The emotional appeal of an argument
Correct Answer: B) The logical connection between premises and
conclusion
Explanation: Relevance measures how closely related the premises are to the
conclusion.
5. What type of fallacy relies on emotional appeals rather than logical
support?
A) Fallacies of Relevance
B) Fallacies of Ambiguity
C) Fallacies of Presumption
D) Fallacies of Induction
Correct Answer: A) Fallacies of Relevance
Explanation: Fallacies of relevance occur when premises are irrelevant to the
conclusion, often using emotional manipulation.
6. Which of the following is an example of an Appeal to Force?
A) "If you don’t agree, you will regret it."
 B) "You should feel sorry for me."
C) "Everyone else thinks this way."
D) "Your argument is invalid because you have no experience."
Correct Answer: A) "If you don’t agree, you will regret it."
Explanation: This statement threatens negative consequences for not agreeing,
exemplifying an Appeal to Force.
7. What is an example of an Appeal to Pity?
A) "You should listen to me because I am popular."
B) "If I am convicted, my family will suffer."
C) "My opponent is not trustworthy."
D) "You’ll be outnumbered if you disagree."
Correct Answer: B) "If I am convicted, my family will suffer."
Explanation: This statement attempts to elicit sympathy instead of providing
logical evidence.
8. What is the main issue with the Appeal to the People fallacy?
A) It relies on irrelevant evidence.
B) It distorts the opponent's argument.
C) It appeals to popular sentiment rather than logical reasoning.
D) It misapplies a general rule.
Correct Answer: C) It appeals to popular sentiment rather than logical
reasoning.
Explanation: This fallacy seeks acceptance through emotional appeal based on
the desires of the audience.
9. What does an Argument Against the Person fallacy involve?
A) Attacking the argument instead of the person
B) Using emotional appeals to persuade
C) Attacking the opponent's character instead of addressing the argument
D) Misapplying a general rule to a specific case
Correct Answer: C) Attacking the opponent's character instead of
addressing the argument
Explanation: This fallacy disregards the argument itself and focuses on the
character or circumstances of the opponent.
10. Which of the following is an example of the Accident fallacy?
A) "Freedom of speech means he can incite a riot."
B) "You want to ban books; that's censorship!"
C) "Crime is rising; we need the death penalty."
D) "Nuclear power is dangerous, but what about crime?"
Correct Answer: A) "Freedom of speech means he can incite a riot."
Explanation: This statement misapplies the general rule of free speech to a
specific case that does not fit.
11. What is a Straw Man fallacy?
A) A direct attack on the opponent
B) Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument and attacking that version
C) Using emotional manipulation to persuade
D) Drawing a conclusion that does not logically follow
Correct Answer: B) Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument and attacking
that version
Explanation: This fallacy distorts the original argument, making it easier to
refute.
12. What characterizes the Missing the Point fallacy?
A) The conclusion logically follows the premises
B) The premises support a different conclusion than the one drawn
C) The argument relies on irrelevant evidence
D) The premises contain emotional appeals
Correct Answer: B) The premises support a different conclusion than the
one drawn
Explanation: In this fallacy, the conclusion drawn does not logically follow from
the premises provided.
13. What is a Red Herring fallacy?
A) A flawed conclusion based on misrepresented premises
B) Introducing a new, irrelevant topic to divert attention
C) Attacking the opponent’s character
D) Making an emotional appeal
Correct Answer: B) Introducing a new, irrelevant topic to divert attention
Explanation: A Red Herring changes the subject and distracts from the main
argument.
14. Which fallacy uses threats or coercion to support a conclusion?
A) Appeal to Pity
B) Appeal to the People
C) Argument Against the Person
D) Appeal to Force
Correct Answer: D) Appeal to Force
Explanation: This fallacy relies on intimidation to compel agreement without
valid evidence.
15. Which example illustrates the Appeal to Pity?
A) "You can't trust her; she made a mistake."
B) "If you convict me, my family will be ruined."
C) "Everyone else is doing it."
D) "This law is bad because it harms my reputation."
Correct Answer: B) "If you convict me, my family will be ruined."
Explanation: This argument seeks to evoke sympathy rather than presenting
logical evidence.
16. What does the Appeal to the People fallacy often rely on?
A) Solid evidence
B) Emotional manipulation
C) Logical reasoning
D) Statistical data
Correct Answer: B) Emotional manipulation
Explanation: This fallacy appeals to the emotions or desires of the audience
rather than logical support.
17. Which fallacy distorts an argument and then attacks that version?
A) Missing the Point
B) Red Herring
C) Straw Man
D) Accident
Correct Answer: C) Straw Man
Explanation: The Straw Man fallacy misrepresents the opponent's argument,
making it easier to attack.
18. What does the Accident fallacy involve?
A) Using an irrelevant premise
B) Misapplying a general rule to a specific case
C) Attacking the opponent’s character
D) Drawing an unsupported conclusion
Correct Answer: B) Misapplying a general rule to a specific case
Explanation: This fallacy incorrectly applies a broad principle to a specific
instance where it doesn't apply.
19. What type of fallacy is characterized by changing the subject?
A) Missing the Point
B) Appeal to Force
C) Red Herring
D) Argument Against the Person
Correct Answer: C) Red Herring
Explanation: A Red Herring distracts from the main argument by introducing an
unrelated topic.
20. What is the primary issue with the Missing the Point fallacy?
A) The argument lacks evidence
B) The conclusion is based on irrelevant premises
C) The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises
D) The premises appeal to emotions
Correct Answer: C) The conclusion does not logically follow from the
premises
Explanation: This fallacy occurs when the conclusion drawn is unrelated to the
premises.
21. In which fallacy do emotional appeals replace logical reasoning?
A) Argument Against the Person
B) Straw Man
C) Appeal to Pity
D) Accident
Correct Answer: C) Appeal to Pity
Explanation: This fallacy uses emotional manipulation to persuade rather than
factual evidence.
22. Which example demonstrates the Appeal to the People?
A) "You should agree with me; everyone else does."
B) "If you don’t support my idea, you’ll regret it."
C) "This argument is invalid because you are wrong."
D) "Freedom of speech allows any speech."
Correct Answer: A) "You should agree with me; everyone else does."
Explanation: This statement appeals to popular opinion rather than logical
reasoning.
23. What does an Argument Against the Person focus on?
A) The merits of the argument
B) The premises supporting the conclusion
C) The opponent's character
D) Statistical evidence
Correct Answer: C) The opponent's character
Explanation: This fallacy disregards the argument itself and attacks the
individual instead.
24. Which fallacy suggests a drastic measure based on unrelated premises?
A) Accident
B) Straw Man
C) Missing the Point
D) Red Herring
Correct Answer: C) Missing the Point
Explanation: This fallacy concludes a significant action based on premises that
do not logically support it.
25. What is the main goal of identifying fallacies in arguments?
A) To win debates
B) To obscure the truth
C) To ensure clarity and credibility
D) To manipulate emotions
Correct Answer: C) To ensure clarity and credibility
Explanation: Recognizing fallacies helps maintain logical integrity in discussions
and debates.