1. The form of a slippery slope argument employs two rules of inference that are formally valid. What are they?

Hypothetical syllogism, modus tollens, and disjunctive syllogism. The form is:

A v B
B -> C
C -> D
D -> E
~E
Therefore ~B
Therefore A

2. Explain the difference between a weak analogy and a hasty generalization.

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 weak analogy need not involve any groups, but rather makes appeal to properties shared by things, going from the fact that A and B share some set of properties, the the conclusion that a further property of A is probably also had by B. Two differences are i) hasty generalization necessarily involves a group, but weak analogy doesn't; ii) weak analogy can cover objects of completely different types, where as hasty generalizations are restricted to a single kind of thing.

3. Under what conditions would an argument with the form of an appeal to authority not be a fallacy?

If there is good reason to suppose that the individual appealed to is in fact an authority in the area.

4. True or false: The fallacy of Straw Man can only be committed by someone who is responding to an argument made by someone else.

True. The fallacy is one in which the arguer distorts his opponent's argument and attempts to defeat this distorted version.

5. Under what conditions would an argument from generalization NOT be the fallacy of hasty generalization?

It wouldn't be fallacy if the members of the group upon which the arguer bases her generalization are are such that there is no reason to suspect that they could be atypical or that the sample size is too small.

6. Either Johnny will ask me to the prom, or I'll just die!!!

False dichotomy. Surely there are more options than this. She might be asked out by a more handsome lad and be happy.

[the following was used in newly expanded pactice final B]

7. Every member of the Iraqi army is poorly trained and equipped. Our forced should have no problem overcoming an ill-eqipped poorly trained army.

No fallacy. This looks superficially like a fallacy of composition, where properties of the parts (people in the Iraqi army) are being attributed to the whole (the entire Iraqi army). But in this case it seems plauble that the inference holds. Having a well-equipped and trained army seems to mean little or no more than having the people in it well-eqipped and trained.

8. I know that Mr. Jones has produced a report arguing that we should open a new water treatment facility. But what you may not realize is that Jones is a convicted rapist. So we should forget all about this ridiculous treatment plant.

Two possibilities. First, ad hominem abusive. The arguer doesn't respond to Jones' argument, but instead insults Jones. Second, it could be considered a genetic fallacy, claiming that an argument is bad because the person who was its source has some undesirable characteristic.

9. Smoking pot definitely leads to heroine use. Over 70% of heroine users smoked pot BEFORE using heroine.

False cause. The arguer mistakes a correlation (between pot smoking and heroine use) for a causal relationship. The correlation is more likely explained by a common cause: some sort of psychological inclination or social context that leads to drug use of various sorts.

10. Of course the government is seeking an all-out prohibition on cigarettes. And once they've got that, they'll go for other targets, like alcohol and fast-food, maybe even buttermilk. There's a line of dominoes a mile long.

Slippery slope. The argument is that we shouldn't allow the government to prohibit cigarettes since this would lead to a chain of events with unpleasant consequences.

11. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

This one is tricky because it is subtle. The thought underlying th epoint is that criticism can legitimately come from someone who is him/herself immune from criticism of that sort. As such, it relies on the same bad inference as ad hominem to quoque -- diving justice and forgiveness notwithstanding.

12. Mr. Jones has argued that we should open a new water treatment plant. But of course what you may not realize is that Jones owns the company that would build such a plant, and so he has much to gain from this expensive venture. So we should not build the proposed plant.

Ad hominem circumstantial. The arguer attempts to defeat Jones' argument by pointing out circumstances (being the owner) that may have led Jones to adopt that position.

13. Da Vinci, Keynes, and Capote were not only great artists and writers, they were also all gay. Therefore, gay men are more creative than the general population.

Hasty generalization. The sample size in small (only three), and there is some reason to think that they are not typical members of the group, but rather extraordinary.

 

14. Lincoln: General Grant has been accused of been a drunkard, and hopelessly addicted to whiskey. Given how incredibly successful Grant has been on the battlefield for the North, I wish he would send a barrel of whiskey to all the rest of my Generals!

False cause. The arguer assumes that whiskey is the cause of Grant's success.

15. Those quiche-eating tree-hugging Californians are incapable of serious thought. If you want to learn anything about politics, talk to a New Yorker.

Ad hominem abusive. No evidence that New Yorkers are more astute is provided, only name calling. (In fact, if this argument were produced by a New Yorker, it would constitute counter-evidence for the conclusion.)

16. When Dr. Barnard performed the first heart transplant, he was praised, not his scalpel. It was, according to the Bible, Cain, and not a rock, that slew Abel. So why in the world should we listen to these liberals who want gun control who blame crimes on guns rather than the people?

This one is tough. There is an element of weak analogy: The case of guns is different from that of scalpels and rocks, in that guns can be dangerous and lead to crimes even in the absence of hardcore criminals. (e.g., the child who found his father's gun in a closet and started playing with it and shot his little brother. In a case like this, one could argue that the very presence of the gun is really what is to blame.)

One could also make a case for straw man. The liberal position is presumably that guns are one of the factors that make certain crimes possible, not that they are responsible for the crimes. Thus, eliminating one of the enabling factors in violent crime is good. But this position is distorted into a claim that guns are responsible for the crimes, and this claim, which is surely bad, is refuted. Even though the examples are cases that point out that we do assign responsibility to the person in charge of the tool, this position is not the gun-control position.

17. Of course God exists! Every culture throughout history has had religious beliefs. How could all these people be wrong?

Ad populum. Arguer appeals to the majority opinion. But that fact that a lot of people believe P does not entail that P is true.

18. 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. The harmful circumstances (no tuition payments) don't support the conclusion that it would be better to major in business.

19. Justice Marshall of the Supreme Court said that the appointment of Souter was politically motivated. That's especially interesting coming from the mouth of Marshall. How does he think that he himself was nominated, as an attorney with neither elective nor judicial experience before his appointment?

Ad hominem tu quoque. The argument is that we shouldn't buy Marshall's argument because Marshall himself is guilty of the circumstance that his is accusing Souter of.

20. Why do I think abortion is murder? Because when I asked my pediatrician to perform one she said she wouldn't do it because she was not a murderer. And she should know, after all, babies and childbirth are her business.

Appeal to authority. Though pediatricians are well-versed in the medical aspects of childbirth, we have no good reason to assume that they are all authorities on the ethical implications of childbirth and abortion.