AWA Identifying Logical Fallacies 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: An argument uses the word 'theory' to mean both 'scientific theory' and 'guess' in different parts of the same passage. This fallacy is called:
- Equivocation (Correct answer)
- Amphiboly
- False analogy
- Composition fallacy
Correct answer: Equivocation
Equivocation exploits a word's multiple meanings to make a misleading argument appear valid.
Question 2: The argument 'Each part of this machine is lightweight, so the machine itself must be lightweight' is an example of:
- Division fallacy
- Composition fallacy (Correct answer)
- False analogy
- Hasty generalization
Correct answer: Composition fallacy
The composition fallacy wrongly assumes that what is true of individual parts must also be true of the whole.
Question 3: Conversely, the argument 'This team has brilliant players, so each player must be brilliant' commits the:
- Composition fallacy
- Division fallacy (Correct answer)
- Straw man
- Circular reasoning
Correct answer: Division fallacy
The division fallacy incorrectly attributes properties of a whole to its individual parts.
Question 4: An AWA passage argues: 'We should reject the scientific consensus on climate change because scientists have been wrong before.' This commits:
- Appeal to ignorance
- Genetic fallacy (Correct answer)
- Hasty generalization
- Slippery slope
Correct answer: Genetic fallacy
The genetic fallacy judges a claim based on its source's past failures rather than evaluating the claim's current evidence.
Question 5: A business report concludes: 'Sales rose after we launched the new campaign, proving the campaign worked.' Without additional evidence, this is a:
- Confirmation bias
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Correct answer)
- False equivalence
- Begging the question
Correct answer: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Post hoc ergo propter hoc assumes that because B followed A, A caused B, ignoring other possible causes.
Question 6: The fallacy of 'false equivalence' occurs when an argument:
- Draws a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premises
- Treats two significantly different things as if they are equal (Correct answer)
- Assumes the conclusion within the premise
- Attacks a person's character to dismiss their argument
Correct answer: Treats two significantly different things as if they are equal
False equivalence wrongly presents two things as comparable when they differ in important and relevant ways.
Question 7: An argument concludes: 'This policy must be good because I cannot imagine any objection to it.' This is an example of:
- Argument from incredulity (Correct answer)
- Appeal to ignorance
- Circular reasoning
- False dichotomy
Correct answer: Argument from incredulity
Argument from incredulity (or personal incredulity) treats one's inability to conceive of alternatives as proof of a claim.
AWA Identifying Logical Fallacies 4
An argument uses the word 'theory' to mean both 'scientific theory' and 'guess' in different parts of the same passage.
This fallacy is called: