8.22 Cumulative Quiz: Fallacies of Faulty Assumption, Ambiguity, and Relevance

Fallacy	Definition
Loaded question	Asking a question with a false or debatable presupposition.
Question-begging language	Using language that restates a conclusion rather than provide evidence for it.
Equivocation	Using an ambiguous word, phrase or sentence to confuse or mislead.
Accent	Changing the meaning of a sentence that is unambiguous in the context by stressing or omitting words in it.
Composition	Arguing that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole, or using a general term distributively in the premises but collectively in the conclusion.
Division	Arguing that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts, or using a general term collectively in the premises but distributively in the conclusion.
Pooh-poohing	Dismissing, rather than refuting, a legitimate point or argument.
Shifting the burden of proof/appeal to ignorance	Asking others to prove a view is wrong, rather than providing evidence that it is right.
Appeal to hate	Arousing irrelevant feelings of hate rather than providing evidence for your point of view.
Appeal to fear	Arousing irrelevant feelings of fear rather than providing evidence for your point of view.
Appeal to pity	Arousing irrelevant feelings of pity rather than providing evidence for your point of view.
Appeal to the crowd	Arousing irrelevant feelings of identity rather than providing evidence for your point of view.
Ignoring the issue	Rather than address the issue at hand, you change the subject.

Question 1 of 30

1. Question

We don’t have to waste time dealing with Ms. Thompson’s claims about would not being promoted to executive positions. She’s just giving us more of the usual feminist claptrap.

Insults Ms. Thompson by calling her “claptrap,” rather than giving evidence that her claims are false. Appeal to hate.
The first sentence can be read as “We don’t have to spend time dealing with Ms. Thompson’s claims because they are obviously true” or “We don’t have to spend time dealing with Ms. Thompson’s claims because she is not worth listening to.” Equivocation.
Ms. Thompson’s legitimate claim is being dismissed as “claptrap.” Pooh-poohing.
Ms. Thompson’s claims may collectively be claptrap, but not necessarily this individual one. Division.

Question 2 of 30

2. Question

Every person who plays or played professional sports must be rich. After all, professional sports players have the highest average salaries of all professions.

It is true that athletes as a professional class are highly paid, but some individuals (retired, injured, or less talented players, or those in less popular sports) don’t become rich. Division.
This passage tries to make us envy sports stars. Appeal to hate.
What is true of the parts is not true of the whole. Composition.
What is true of the whole is not true of the parts. Division.

Question 3 of 30

3. Question

Don’t pick up that toad! They cause warts! Everybody knows that!

Tries to scare us by threatening us with warts. Appeal to fear.
Toads as a species cause warts, but that doesn’t mean individual toads do. Division.
The word “wart” is ambiguous. Equivocation.
No evidence is given for the claim that toads cause warts except that most people believe it, but most people are not biologists. Appeal to the crowd.

Question 4 of 30

4. Question

Ad in newspaper: “New Housing Development! Beautiful Homes Available Now! Get there first! They won’t last long!”

The ad is stressing words such as “New,” “Beautiful” and “Now” to sell the homes. Accent.
“They won’t last long” is ambiguous. It can be read “These homes will sell out fast” or “These homes are so poorly built that they will not last.” Equivocation.
This ad makes you afraid you will miss out on a bargain house. Appeal to fear.
This ad says that everybody wants a home. Appeal to the crowd.

Question 5 of 30

5. Question

Sue: “I really love how Billie Holiday could interpret a song, and the way she could convey her emotion in her voice. She was a superb jazz singer.”
Lorna: “What would you know about jazz singers? You’re a white girl!”

Sue uses phrases like “interpret,” “convey” and “superb” to make the claim that Billie Holiday was a great singer. Question-begging language.
Lorna dismisses Sue’s statements. Pooh-poohing.
Sue makes us feel sorry for Billie Holiday, who had a tragic life. Appeal to pity.
Lorna gives no evidence that Sue is wrong, but instead says that because Sue is white her opinion here is worthless. However, Sue’s skin color is irrelevant to the issue of whether Holiday was a great singer. Appeal to hate.

Question 6 of 30

6. Question

The human body is made of cells. These cells are invisible. So the human body is invisible.

What is true of the parts isn’t necessarily true of the whole. Composition.
What is true of the parts isn’t necessarily true of the whole. Division.
Individually, cells are invisible but collectively, when you put enough of them together, they are visible. Composition.
Individually, cells are invisible but collectively, when you put enough of them together, they are visible. Division.

Question 7 of 30

7. Question

Luisa: “I think that the country should invest more money in our educational system.”
Juan: “But aren’t we spending beyond our budget? Where will we get the money?”
Luisa: “Isn’t it obvious that education is crucial in our modern economy?”

Luisa insults Juan by saying he is insensitive to the need for an educational system. Appeal to hate.
Juan doesn’t address Luisa topic; instead, he talks about our budget problems. Ignoring the Issue.
Instead of proving her point, Luisa replies with a question. Shifting the burden of proof.
Rather that address Juan’s legitimate point doubting that there is sufficient money for increased investment in education, Luisa talks about how important education is. Ignoring the issue.

Question 8 of 30

8. Question

Why do I believe that God exists? Because despite centuries of trying to prove He doesn’t, atheists have not been able to do so.

The speaker points to an alleged lack of disproof of God’s existence as if it were some kind of proof. Shifting the burden of proof.
The speaker attacks atheists for being stupid. Appeal to hate.
The question presupposes that the speaker believes God exists. Loaded question.
The question of God’s existence is simply dismissed. Pooh-poohing.

Question 9 of 30

9. Question

Mr. Hong once again brings up the old liberal chestnut that minorities are being exploited by businesses to keep labor costs low. What a laughable view.

Mr. Hong is called an old liberal chestnut, which is very insulting. Appeal to hate.
Mr. Hong gives no evidence for his claim; he just talks about poor minorities being exploited. Appeal to pity.
No evidence is given that Mr. Hong’s view about minorities being exploited is wrong; it is only dismissed as laughable. Pooh-poohing.
No evidence is given that Mr. Hong’s view about minorities being exploited is wrong; it is only dismissed as laughable. Appeal to the crowd.

Question 10 of 30

10. Question

Why does China make only junk?

While it may have been true in years past that China manufactured low-end goods, it is hardly the case today. Loaded question.
China is being attacked as junk. Appeal to hate.
The speaker is trying to appeal to our patriotism. Appeal to the crowd.
China is being dismissed. Pooh-poohing.

Question 11 of 30

11. Question

Yes, you can ask for a raise. And I can fire you. We both have freedom.

The speaker changes the topic from his worker getting a raise to freedom. Ignoring the issue.
The speaker gives no good reason why the worker doesn’t deserve a raise; instead, he threatens to terminate the worker. Appeal to fear.
The speaker blows off his worker’s question about getting a raise. Pooh-poohing.
Instead of explaining why the employee shouldn’t get a raise, he demands that the employee give reasons why that employee shouldn’t be fired. Shifting the burden or proof.

Question 12 of 30

12. Question

Candidate Jones: “If elected, I plan to increase funding for research into electric cars. It may help slow global warming.”
Candidate Smith: “Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent seems to be saying that all our ecological problems can be solved if we all just buy little electric cars!”

Smith is insinuating that his opponent Jones is a fool. Appeal to hate.
Jones is assuming that moving to electric cars will help slow global warming. Loaded question.
Smith is distorting what Jones said. Jones only said moving to electric cars might help slow global warming, not that it would solve all ecological problems. Ignoring the issue.
Smith is distorting what Jones said. Jones only said moving to electric cars might help slow global warming, not that it would solve all ecological problems. Shifting the burden of proof.

Question 13 of 30

13. Question

You can’t prove that he was to blame for the misfortune, so it must have been someone else.

The speaker presupposes that there was a misfortune. Loaded question.
The speaker gives no evidence about who is to blame. Ignoring the issue.
“Prove” is used ambiguously here. Equivocation.
The fact that we can’t prove he was to blame for the misfortune doesn’t count as proof someone else did. Shifting the burden of proof.

Question 14 of 30

14. Question

Both sodium and chlorine are poisonous to people. So sodium chloride (table salt) must be poisonous.

What’s true of the parts is not necessarily true of the whole. Composition.
What’s true of the whole is not necessarily true of the parts. Division.
The sodium and chlorine atoms combine to create a harmless—indeed, even necessary—molecule. Composition.
The sodium and chlorine atoms combine to create a harmless—indeed, even necessary—molecule. Division.

Question 15 of 30

15. Question

Christianity has a long history of doing bad things. So you Christians should all feel guilty.

The speaker attributes to individual members of a religious institution whatever misdeeds that institution may have committed. Division.
The speaker attributes to individual members of a religious institution whatever misdeeds that institution may have committed. Composition.
The speaker presupposes that Christianity has a history of doing bad things. Loaded question.
The speaker demeans the Christian religion. Appeal to hate.

Question 16 of 30

16. Question

We should reject Ms. Harris’s suggestion for increasing the efficacy of our colleges. As a manufacturer, she cannot be expected to realize that our aim is to educate the youth, not make a profit.

Ms. Harris’s statement has been changed by omitting words. Accent.
The speaker is being attacked because she is in manufacturing. But she is not the issue—her efficiency recommendations are. Appeal to hate.
Ms. Harris says that the colleges are run “inefficiently.” Question-begging language.
The speaker presupposes that she can’t understand the proper mission of a college. Loaded question.

Question 17 of 30

17. Question

The anti-war protesters are all cowards. They’re students scared because they may have to fight to defend their country. Real chickens, if you ask me.

No reason is given to show the anti-war protesters are wrong; instead, they are accused of being afraid of service. But even cowards can be correct. Appeal to hate.
No reason is given to show the anti-war protesters are wrong; instead, they are accused of being afraid of service. Appeal to fear.
The protesters’ point of view is just dismissed. Pooh-poohing.
The speaker is demanding that the protesters prove themselves. Shifting the burden of proof.

Question 18 of 30

18. Question

Ad: “Squirrels are man’s best friend, but so many of them go to bed hungry at night. Here at the Save the Squirrels Society, we try every day to stop the horrible problem of squirrel starvation. Won’t you send your support right away?”

Tugs at your heart. Appeal to pity.
The phrase “man’s best friend” is ambiguous. Equivocation.
Makes us afraid that starving squirrels will turn on us. Appeal to fear.
The ad doesn’t tell you how your donations will actually help squirrels; instead, it makes you feel sorry for starving squirrels.

Question 19 of 30

19. Question

Sales leaflet: “This is a genuine offer! We have no connection with other companies which are selling trash!”

The ad accentuates that its offer is “genuine.” Accent.
The leaflet can be read two different ways: “We are not like other companies in that they sell trash whereas we sell quality merchandise” or “We sell trash but we are unlike other companies that also sell trash.” Equivocation.
The meaning of the leaflet has been changed by the omission of words. Accent.
This leaflet puts down other competing companies, claiming that they sell trash. Appeal to hate.

Question 20 of 30

20. Question

Student: “I think that the cafeteria is overcharging for food.”
Teacher: “I doubt that…this is a non-profit institution, after all.”
Student: “Oh, yeah? Well, can you prove that the prices there are fair?”

The teacher simply refuses to respond to the student’s legitimate point. Pooh-poohing.
The student changes the meaning of the teacher’s claim by omitting words. Accent.
The institution collectively may be non-profit, but the cafeteria may not be. Division.
The student is demanding that the teacher prove him wrong—but he’s the one making the claim. Shifting the burden of proof.

Question 21 of 30

21. Question

In all times and places, in every culture and civilization, people have believed in the existence of some sort of deity. Therefore, a supernatural being must exist.

The argument shifts from talking about a “deity” to a “supernatural being.” Equivocation.
The fact (if it is one) that every culture has believed in God doesn’t make that true, any more than the fact that every culture has believed in slavery would make slavery right. Appeal to the crowd.
Just because cultures collectively have believed in a deity doesn’t mean that each individual one does. Division.
Just because cultures collectively have believed in a deity doesn’t mean that each individual one does. Composition.

Question 22 of 30

22. Question

Abstract art isn’t even art. Those pictures and sculptures don’t represent anything, and that’s how you know it’s not even art.

The claim that abstract art isn’t art at all isn’t argued for but just repeated in different words. Question-begging language.
The claim that abstract art isn’t art at all isn’t argued for but just repeated in different words. Shifting the burden of proof.
The speaker insults modern art. Appeal to hate.
The speaker tells us average people don’t like abstract art—but average people aren’t educated in art. Appeal to the crowd.

Question 23 of 30

23. Question

Smith scares me. He’s running for the Senate, and I worry that if he’s elected, he will push for concentration camps to kill people like you and me. I’m afraid not just for my life, but for the lives of millions of helpless children.

“Concentration camp” has different meanings. Equivocation.
The speaker gives no evidence that Smith is not worth voting for, he just builds it into the description. Question-begging language.
The speaker talks about concentration camps and dead children, but gives not a shred of evidence Smith would do any of these things. Appeal to fear.
The speaker talks about concentration camps and dead children, but gives not a shred of evidence Smith would do any of these things. Appeal to the crowd.

Question 24 of 30

24. Question

Yes, equal pay for women is an important issue, but why is it that the overwhelmingly high percentage of suicides is men? I mean, don’t you care about people dying?

The speaker dismisses the issue of equal pay for women. Pooh-poohing.
The speaker doesn’t address the issue of equal pay for women, but instead talks about the male suicide. Ignoring the issue.
The passage makes us feel afraid of dying. Appeal to fear.
The phrase “equal pay” is ambiguous. Equivocation.

Question 25 of 30

25. Question

Ad for beer:
YOU ARE GOING TO DIE!!!!
…eventually. So you may as well enjoy yourself while you still live. Abel’s Beer will help you and your friends enjoy life!

The ad changes the meaning of the unambiguous sentence “You are going to die eventually” by putting all but the last word in capital letters, making it more ominous. Accent.
This beer ad makes you feel sorry for yourself, and says you deserve a beer. Appeal to pity.
The ad only tells us that Abel’s Beer is popular, not about its taste or quality. Appeal to the crowd.
The ad's first sentence is ambiguous. Equivocation.

Question 26 of 30

26. Question

Ed: “I think that because America faces major adversaries such as China, Russia and Iran, we should increase our defense spending.”
Ted: “What the hell do you know? You never even went to college!”

Ed talks about China, Russia and Iran being our enemies. Appeal to fear.
Ted gives no evidence that Ed is wrong, Ted just dismisses Ed’s claim. Pooh-poohing.
Ted gives no evidence that Ed is wrong, Ted just says nobody believes Ed. Appeal to the crowd.
Ted gives no evidence that Ed is wrong, Ted just says Ed is not worth listening to because he never went to college. Attacking the person.

Question 27 of 30

27. Question

Man to a charity solicitor: “I will give no more money, I mean, no more at all, to your so-called charity ever again.”
Solicitor: “Well, thank you for saying you will continue to give your current amount.”

What the donor says to the solicitor is ambiguous—we don’t know what he thinks about the charity. Equivocation.
The solicitor changes the meaning of what the donor says by dropping the words “I mean, no more at all”—with the meaning “I will give no more” now taken as “I will give the same amount but no more than I am giving now.” Accent.
The solicitor tries to make the donor feel sorry for those people or animals that the charity is supposed to help. Appeal to pity.
The solicitor gives no reasons why the donor should continue to be a donor. Ignoring the issue.

Question 28 of 30

28. Question

Why do Democrats want the government to completely control our lives? I have always found this amazing….

The speaker claims that the Democrats want the government to control our lives. Attacking the person.
The speaker gives no evidence that the Democrats want the government to control our lives. Ignoring the issue.
The speaker’s question presupposes that Democrats want to control our lives, which is quite debatable. Loaded question.
“Completely control” is ambiguous. Equivocation.

Question 29 of 30

29. Question

One employee to another: “I hope management makes Sue the store manager. Yeah, she was once caught stealing, but she’s been through a horrible divorce, two major operations, and her son just got sent to jail.”

The phrase “was once caught stealing” is ambiguous. Equivocation.
The employee speaking gives no evidence that Sue should be manager. Ignoring the issue.
The employee is attacking Sue by pointing out her past crime. Appeal to hate.
Instead of giving relevant reasons why Sue should be manager, the employee only lists problems that Sue has faced. Appeal to pity.

Question 30 of 30

30. Question

Poster: “Save soap and waste paper.”
Man to wife: “I agree we should save soap, but why should we waste paper? That seems odd to me. “

The poster is ambiguous. Equivocation.
The man is twisting the meaning of the poster by stressing one word in it. Accent.
The poster can be read “Save soap and unused paper” or “Save soap but go ahead and waste paper.” Equivocation.
The poster gives no reason why we should save soap and waste paper. Ignoring the issue.