Exam 8: Fallacies in Reasoning, Part I
When advancing a generalization, what are some ways of strengthening the argument and avoiding a hasty or sweeping generalization? Provide one or more examples to illustrate your suggestions.
When advancing a generalization, it is important to strengthen the argument by providing specific evidence, examples, and data to support the generalization. This can help to avoid making a hasty or sweeping generalization by ensuring that the generalization is based on solid evidence and is not overly broad.
One way to strengthen the argument is to provide specific examples that illustrate the generalization. For example, if someone is making a generalization about the intelligence of a certain group of people, they could strengthen their argument by providing specific examples of successful individuals from that group who have achieved academic or professional success.
Another way to strengthen the argument is to provide data or statistics that support the generalization. For instance, if someone is making a generalization about the impact of a certain policy, they could strengthen their argument by citing specific data or studies that demonstrate the policy's effects.
Additionally, it is important to acknowledge any potential counterarguments or exceptions to the generalization. By addressing potential criticisms and acknowledging that there may be exceptions to the generalization, the argument can be made more nuanced and less prone to being dismissed as a hasty or sweeping generalization.
In conclusion, when advancing a generalization, it is important to strengthen the argument by providing specific evidence, examples, and data, while also acknowledging potential counterarguments and exceptions. This can help to ensure that the generalization is well-supported and not overly broad.
In a post hoc fallacy "Q" is presumed to be the cause of "Z" because:
B
The old saying, "Where there is smoke, there is fire," is subject to which fallacy?
A
According to FBI statistics, "9 out of 10 heroin addicts began by first using marijuana." However, one could also argue that 9 out of 10 heroin addicts began with peanut butter. Nine out of 10 people who try marijuana do not go on to become heroin addicts. The most significant weakness with the FBI's argument is:
Mistaking one thing or event as a reliable indicator of another thing or event is known as:
Nadine is about to give $5.00 to a homeless person. Her friend, Mona, says, "Don't give him any money. They're all winos and drug addicts." Mona has committed which fallacy?
Testimonials in infomercials are highly suspect, based on which fallacy?
"My horoscope said I would meet a 'tall, dark stranger' yesterday. Sure enough, I found a big, black, stray dog yesterday afternoon. I took him home to keep." Which fallacy is represented in this example?
Imagine that you want to explore whether paying people compliments leads them to be smarter. Explain how you might design a study using a "double-blind" procedure to examine this.
Bruno tells Sascha that he thinks students in private schools outperform those in public schools, because students in private schools wear uniforms. The most likely type of reasoning that Bruno is using is:
"Smoking is now against the law at some beaches. Next thing you know, there will be a ban on smoking in outdoor venues, like stadiums, parades, and swap meets. What's next? Is the government going to ban Hostess Twinkies because so many Americans are obese? Is the government going to ban walking because someone might trip, or pencils because someone might get poked in the eye?" The most likely fallacy in this argument is:
Reasoning based on a "domino effect" is often subject to this fallacy:
I tried to play the tuba and failed. Then I tried to play the trombone, and I failed. Let's face it, I just don't have any musical talent.
An arguer who is relying on circumstantial evidence is using
Biff tells Rex, "I noticed a condom in Lulu's purse, so I'll bet she sleeps around." The most likely fallacy is:
Superstitions, such as the belief that bad luck will result if a black cat crosses your path, are based on which error in causal reasoning?
Explain the difference between correlation and causation, and why being able to distinguish between the two is important when evaluating arguments as fallacious or cogent.
Enrique says, "Last semester I wore this shirt to a final exam and I got an 'A', so I'm wearing it to all my final exams this semester." The fallacy involved in this reasoning is:
Agree or disagree with the following statement: Once an argument has been identified as fallacious, it no longer deserves to be considered. As part of your answer, be sure to describe what a fallacy is.
The fallacy known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc, or simply "post hoc," involves confusing
Filters
- Essay(0)
- Multiple Choice(0)
- Short Answer(0)
- True False(0)
- Matching(0)