AWA Identifying Logical Fallacies 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: An essay argues: 'This drug must work because a Nobel Prize-winning physicist endorses it.' Without medical expertise, this endorsement represents:
- Appeal to authority (irrelevant) (Correct answer)
- Ad hominem
- False analogy
- Bandwagon fallacy
Correct answer: Appeal to authority (irrelevant)
Appealing to an authority outside their area of expertise is a form of the appeal to authority fallacy.
Question 2: Which of the following is an example of circular reasoning (begging the question)?
- 'The law is just because it was passed by a democratic government.'
- 'The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true.' (Correct answer)
- 'Most experts support this view, so it must be correct.'
- 'We cannot ban this book because censorship is wrong.'
Correct answer: 'The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true.'
Circular reasoning uses the conclusion as a premise — the Bible's truth is justified only by the Bible itself.
Question 3: An AWA argument compares a company to a sports team, claiming 'Just as a team wins by having the best players, a company succeeds by hiring the best employees alone.' The weakness is a:
- False analogy (Correct answer)
- Straw man
- Post hoc fallacy
- Slippery slope
Correct answer: False analogy
A false analogy draws a comparison between two things that differ in key respects relevant to the conclusion.
Question 4: The statement 'We must act on this proposal now, or the consequences will be catastrophic' uses urgency to prevent deliberation. This tactic is known as:
- Appeal to force (ad baculum)
- False urgency / appeal to fear (Correct answer)
- Red herring
- Slippery slope
Correct answer: False urgency / appeal to fear
False urgency (a form of appeal to fear) pressures an audience into accepting a conclusion by manufacturing a crisis scenario.
Question 5: In evaluating an AWA argument, which question best helps identify a hasty generalization?
- 'Does the conclusion logically follow from the stated premises?'
- 'Is the sample size and representativeness sufficient to support the broad conclusion?' (Correct answer)
- 'Does the arguer attack the person rather than the position?'
- 'Is there a hidden assumption connecting the evidence to the claim?'
Correct answer: 'Is the sample size and representativeness sufficient to support the broad conclusion?'
Hasty generalizations are best detected by scrutinizing whether the sample is large and representative enough to justify the sweeping claim.
Question 6: An arguer states: 'If you truly cared about the environment, you would support this specific bill.' This attempts to establish loyalty through an implied threat of hypocrisy, which is closest to:
- Appeal to flattery
- False dichotomy
- Emotional appeal (appeal to guilt) (Correct answer)
- Tu quoque
Correct answer: Emotional appeal (appeal to guilt)
The argument exploits guilt or loyalty — implying that disagreement exposes the listener as hypocritical or uncaring — rather than addressing the bill's merits.
Question 7: Which of the following strategies is most effective when critiquing a logical fallacy in an AWA essay?
- Name the fallacy and move on without elaboration
- Identify the fallacy, explain why the reasoning fails, and show what evidence or argument would actually be needed (Correct answer)
- Rewrite the argument in a form you agree with
- Focus primarily on the author's credentials and motivations
Correct answer: Identify the fallacy, explain why the reasoning fails, and show what evidence or argument would actually be needed
Effective AWA critique names the fallacy, explains the logical flaw, and specifies what would be required to make the argument valid.
AWA Identifying Logical Fallacies 5
An essay argues: 'This drug must work because a Nobel Prize-winning physicist endorses it.' Without medical expertise, this endorsement represents: