Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Identifying Logical Fallacies Questions and Answers 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Argument: 'Either we invest massively in military spending, or we will be invaded by foreign powers.' What fallacy does this commit?
- Ad hominem — it attacks those who disagree with military spending.
- False dilemma — it presents only two options when many middle-ground positions exist. (Correct answer)
- Slippery slope — it assumes one decision leads to an extreme outcome.
- Straw man — it misrepresents the opposing view on military spending.
Correct answer: False dilemma — it presents only two options when many middle-ground positions exist.
The argument presents only two extreme options (massive investment or invasion) while ignoring moderate defense strategies, alliances, diplomacy, and other security approaches.
A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy or either/or fallacy) occurs when a speaker presents only two options as if no others exist, when in reality a spectrum of choices is available. Here, the argument ignores proportionate defense spending, multilateral alliances (NATO), arms control treaties, diplomatic relations, and many other security strategies that fall between 'massive spending' and 'invasion.' Slippery slope would involve a chain of causation (spending cut → slightly weaker military → further cuts → invasion); this argument jumps directly to the extreme without that causal chain. Straw man and ad hominem involve misrepresenting or attacking opponents, which is not happening here.
Question 2: Argument: 'This must be a good wine — it won the International Wine Competition in 2019.' What fallacy might this commit?
- Appeal to authority — the award is treated as sufficient proof of quality without broader evidence. (Correct answer)
- Ad hominem — it dismisses critics who dislike the wine.
- Hasty generalization — it uses a single award to judge all wines.
- Red herring — the award distracts from the real question of flavor preference.
Correct answer: Appeal to authority — the award is treated as sufficient proof of quality without broader evidence.
A competition award is an authority's judgment — treating it as definitive proof of quality relies on appeal to authority without considering subjective taste, context of competition, or vintage variation.
Appeal to authority occurs when a source of authority is used as primary evidence for a claim without additional support. A wine competition award indicates that a panel of judges preferred this wine at one tasting — it doesn't guarantee universal quality, that the wine still tastes the same years later, or that it suits all palates. However, appeal to authority is a weaker fallacy than the others: expert authority is relevant evidence; the fallacy is treating it as conclusive rather than suggestive. Options B (ad hominem) and D (red herring) don't fit the structure. Option C (hasty generalization) would involve drawing broad conclusions from limited sample cases about a category, not from an award.
Question 3: A politician says: 'My opponent voted against increasing police budgets, which shows he doesn't care about public safety.' What fallacy is this?
- Slippery slope — the argument assumes budget cuts lead to crime increases.
- False dilemma — it implies caring about safety requires increasing police budgets.
- Straw man — it misrepresents the opponent's position to make it easier to attack. (Correct answer)
- Circular reasoning — it assumes the conclusion in the premise.
Correct answer: Straw man — it misrepresents the opponent's position to make it easier to attack.
The opponent's vote against budget increases may reflect a preference for alternative public safety approaches (community programs, mental health services) — the politician unfairly characterizes this as not caring about safety.
A straw man fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents their opponent's position to make it easier to criticize. The opponent voted against a specific policy (police budget increase) but may still strongly value public safety — they might prefer alternative policing reforms, community-based intervention programs, or have concerns about government spending. Reducing this nuanced policy vote to 'doesn't care about safety' attacks a distorted version of the opponent's position. Option A (slippery slope) would involve a chain of consequences. Option B (false dilemma) would be 'either increase police budgets or abandon safety.' Option D (circular reasoning) would involve assuming the conclusion as a premise.
Question 4: Argument: 'Thousands of people have bought this supplement, so it must be effective.' What fallacy does this commit?
- Appeal to nature — the supplement is natural, so it must be safe.
- Ad populum (bandwagon fallacy) — popularity is used as evidence of effectiveness. (Correct answer)
- Post hoc — the supplement was taken before recovery, so it caused recovery.
- False dilemma — either take the supplement or remain unhealthy.
Correct answer: Ad populum (bandwagon fallacy) — popularity is used as evidence of effectiveness.
The number of buyers reflects marketing success, price, and accessibility, not clinical effectiveness — popularity does not establish efficacy.
Ad populum (appeal to popularity or bandwagon fallacy) argues that because many people do or believe something, it must be correct. Supplement sales reflect marketing, affordability, availability, placebo effects, and confirmation bias from satisfied customers — not controlled clinical evidence of effectiveness. History is full of popular but ineffective or harmful health products. Option A (appeal to nature) would involve claiming the supplement is effective because it is natural. Option C (post hoc ergo propter hoc) would require a before-after causal claim. Option D (false dilemma) would present two extreme choices. This argument specifically uses 'thousands of buyers' as the evidence, which is the ad populum structure.
Question 5: Statement: 'We shouldn't take Dr. Lee's research on climate change seriously — she drives a large SUV.' What fallacy is this?
- Appeal to authority — Dr. Lee's credentials are being misused.
- Tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) — attacking the person's behavior to discredit their argument. (Correct answer)
- Slippery slope — Dr. Lee's SUV will lead to further environmental damage.
- Hasty generalization — one researcher with an SUV represents all climate scientists.
Correct answer: Tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) — attacking the person's behavior to discredit their argument.
Tu quoque dismisses an argument by pointing to the speaker's allegedly hypocritical behavior, rather than addressing the substance of the research.
Tu quoque (you also) is a fallacy that deflects criticism by pointing to the critic's own behavior, or in this case, dismisses an argument by attacking the arguer's perceived inconsistency. Dr. Lee's personal vehicle choice has no logical bearing on the validity of her research methodology or findings. Climate research is evaluated through peer review, data quality, and reproducibility — not the carbon footprint of the researcher. This is also related to ad hominem but specifically tu quoque because it focuses on behavioral inconsistency. Option A misidentifies the fallacy — appeal to authority uses credentials as proof, the opposite of what's happening here. Option C (slippery slope) involves a causal chain. Option D (hasty generalization) involves sampling errors.
Question 6: Argument: 'Alternative medicine has been practiced for thousands of years, which proves it is effective.' What type of fallacy is this?
- Appeal to tradition — long historical use is treated as proof of effectiveness. (Correct answer)
- Ad hominem — it attacks critics of alternative medicine.
- Equivocation — the term 'practiced' is used in two different senses.
- Circular reasoning — effective medicine is defined as medicine that has been practiced.
Correct answer: Appeal to tradition — long historical use is treated as proof of effectiveness.
Many practices have been used for centuries that were later proven ineffective or harmful — historical longevity does not establish clinical efficacy.
Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) argues that because something has been done for a long time, it is correct, effective, or justified. Historical persistence reflects cultural transmission, placebo effects, and confirmation bias — not clinical efficacy. Bloodletting was practiced for over 2,000 years; astrology has ancient roots. Long historical use must be distinguished from evidence-based efficacy. Option B (ad hominem) attacks people; this argument doesn't attack critics. Option C (equivocation) would require the word 'practiced' shifting meaning mid-argument. Option D (circular reasoning) would require effectiveness being defined in terms of the premise; the argument here uses historical duration as external evidence, not a definitional loop.
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Identifying Logical Fallacies Questions and Answers 2
Argument: 'Either we invest massively in military spending, or we will be invaded by foreign powers.' What fallacy does this commit?