1. The fallacy of false dichotomy rests on the misapplication of a valid rule of inference. What rule?

Disjunctive syllogism.

2. When would an argument with the form of a straw man fallacy not be a fallacy?

If the arguer does not in fact distort his opponent's argument, or more generally if the arguer's restatement of his/her opponent's argument does not distort it in any relevant way.

3. Explain the difference between a hasty generalization and a false cause.

A hasty generalization is a fallacy in which an arguer draws a conclusion about all members of a group based on the characteristics of a few members, even though there is no reason to think that those few are typical of the entire group. A false cause is a fallacy in which the arguer assumes that there is a causal relation between two phenomena, when in fact there is only a correlation between the phenomena. The difference is that a hasty generalization does not have to be about any sort of causal effect (the hasty generalization that all swans are white is not about any causal connection). And false causes need not involve any generalization to types of phenomena -- one could commit false cause even if only concerned with a single event.

4. When would an argument with the form of an appeal to ignorance not be a fallacy?

It's not a fallacy in cases where lack of evidence is good reason to suppose a thing doesn't exist. (e.g., I thoroughly searched the table and couldn't find my keys. Thus I have good reason to suppose that my keys aren't on the table.)

5. True or false: if there is no mention, either explicit or implicit, of physical violence, then no appeal to force fallacy can have been committed.

False. The harm in question does not have to one of physical violence, but must merely be unrelated to the argument's conclusion. (it could be financial harm, psychological harm, etc.).

6. If we legalize abortion, we will soon see a flood of elder abuse, child abuse, and child pornography. Lack of respect for life leads to lack of respect for the living.

Slippery slope. The claim is that if abortion is legalized, then a chain of undesirable events will occur (child pornography, etc). But it is in fact unlikely that the legalization of abortion will lead to these effects.

7. Nine days after a member from the Red Indian tribe performed a rain dance in the middle of California's biggest drought of the decade, a major rainstorm appeared, providing 2 inches of rainfall. Paul Steigen of the local water district is convinced that it was no accident. "They came, they danced, it rained." he sad.

There are two possible readings for this passage:

A: The arguer just states a bunch of historical facts, i.e., the member danced, and nine days later it rained, and Paul Steigen is convinced that it wasn't an accident. It isn't trying to convince you that the raining was caused by the dancing. On this reading there's no fallacy. On this interpretation Steigen is probably committing a false cause fallacy, but the person writing the passage is not committing any fallacies, because s/he is not trying to make any point at all.

B: The arguer is trying to convince you that the raining was caused by the dancing by mentioning a correlation between the dancing and the raining (i.e., "the indian danced and nine days later it severely rained") and by mentioning that a figure of authority (Steigen) believes that it was no accident. On this reading there would be two fallacies: False cause and appeal to authority.

[underlined ones used in new expanded practice final A]

8. Bill said that all Catholic traditions come from the Bible or from events surrounding the life of Jesus. But in fact many of the traditions, ceremonies and even stories have much older histories in various polytheistic traditions. So Bill's contentions is simply incorrect.

This is no fallacy. It looks superficially like a genetic fallacy, in that the origins of some set of beliefs or traditions is being appealed to. But in this case, the origins of these traditions is in fact the topic of the debate, and so such appeal is not irrelevant.

9. American: Your Spanish custom of bull fighting is cruel and dangerous, and should be stopped.

Spaniard: But fewer people are injured bull fighting than are injured every year playing American football.

Ad hominem tu quoque. The spaniard is ignoring the merits of the American's argument and is merely pointing out that Americans engage in a sport in which more people are injured.

10. I know you want to major in philosophy. But I think it would be better for you to major in business or engineering. If you change your major to philosophy, I will no longer pay your tuition.

Appeal to force. Arguer threatens that harmful circumstances will occur if the persuadee doesn't major in philosophy. But these circumstances are unrelated to why it would be better to major in business than in philosophy.

11. Of course taxes are too high. In a recent poll, over 80% of all Americans said that they thought taxes are too high. What better proof could you want?

Ad populum. Arguer draws his conclusion on the basis of what the majority of Americans say.

12. Mike Shanahan, coach of the Denver Broncos, has argued that Davis should be on the Pro Bowl team because of his high total yards, and high average per rush. But Shanahan is Davis' coach, so of course he will say this. So someone else should go to the Pro Bowl.

Ad hominem circumstantial. Arguer attempts to defeat Shanahan's argument by pointing out that Shanahan's circumstances (e.g., being the coach of Davis) may have influenced his position, but does not address Shanahan's actual reasons.

13. I think you should change my grade, since I surely don't deserve a D. I know what your car looks like, and where you park.

Appeal to force. The last sentence suggests physical harm which is unrelated to why the arguer doesn't deserve a D.

14. Ted Nugent says that deer hunting is OK because hunting is part of nature (all predators do it) and it helps to strengthen the deer herd. But it is ridiculous to defend hunting on the ground that they don't mind being killed. Every animal, human or otherwise, strives to continue to live.

Straw man. Ted Nugent is not arguing that deer should be hunted because they don't mind being killed. This is a serious distortion of his position.

15. As much as we dislike racial epithets, we have to put up with them. The only alternative is to silence everybody, which would be too much of an infringement on personal liberty.

False dichotomy. Arguer presents us with two alternatives (put up with racial epithets or silence everybody) when in fact there are more. He then proceeds to rule out the second alternative as unacceptable.

16. Marriages are like horse races. Some are sure things, while others are losers out of the gate. The moral is, check out all the contestants before placing a bet.

Weak analogy. One may not be able to predict which newlyweds will in the long run have a successful marriage and which won't in the straightforward way one may predict which horses are likely to win and which aren't (i.e., by a routine observation). Further obvious disanalogies exist (for example, checking out all of the horses running in a race will not keep you from being able to bet on any horse you want, but insisting on trying out relationships with a lot of people might prevent you from maintaining a relationship with someone you meet early on).

17. Our boss said that we couldn't leave early today even though tomorrow is Thanksgiving. He said that there is too much work that needs to be done. Our boss wants us to be a bunch of over-worked zombies. But that sort of thing is not good for morale, and will be very bad for the company in the long term.

 

Straw Man. The arguer misinterprets the boss as arguing that his subordinates should be zombies and attempts to defeat this distorted argument.

18. You know, I thought the argument by that guy was the dumbest argument I'd ever heard. But your stupid argument just trumped his stupid argument.

Ad hominem abusive. The arguer verbally abuses his opponent rather than addressing the opponent's argument.

19. American: Your Spanish custom of bull fighting is cruel and dangerous, and should be stopped.

Spaniard: But the bulls that die in the bullfighting events live twice as long as those that end up as McDonalds Big Macs.

Ad hominem tu quoque. Rather than examining the merits of the American's argument that bullfighting is dangerous and should be stopped,the arguer suggests that bullfighting is less cruel than the practice (in the opponent's country) of making big macs.

20. Father to mother: I think we should ground little Billy. He got another bad grade in his logic class. If this slack behavior continues, soon he will be failing his classes, then hanging out with delinquents, and getting hooked on drugs.

Slippery slope. There's no reason to suppose that a bad grade in logic is likely to get one hooked on drugs.