PHI 105 EXAM QUESTIONS WITH
CORRECT ANSWERS
APPEAL |TO |IGNORANCE |- |VERIFIED |ANSWER✔✔-An |appeal |to |ignorance |uses |lack |of |evidence |(for |or |
against) |as |the |basis |of |the |argument. |For |example, |if |something |can't |be |disproven, |it |must |be |true!
Example
You |have |a |family |member |who |has |a |terminal |disease. |You |hear |of |a |possible |new |cure |being |
offered |in |another |country. |You |contact |the |group |promoting |this |cure |and |ask |if |it |works. |They |say,
|"No |one |has |ever |shown |that |it |doesn't |work, |so |of |course |it |works!"
HASTY |GENERALIZATION |- |VERIFIED |ANSWER✔✔-Definition
A |hasty |generalization |occurs |'when |a |conclusion |is |drawn |from |a |sample |that |is |too |small |or |
selective |to |assume |with |any |confidence |that |it |represents |the |subject |accurately' |(Goodpaster |& |
Kirby, |2006, |p. |205).
POST |HOC |ERGO |PROPTER |HOC |- |VERIFIED |ANSWER✔✔-Definition
Post |Hoc |Ergo |Propter |Hoc |at |times |is |one |of |the |most |persuasive |fallacies. |Assuming |that |because |B |
follows |A, |A |must |have |caused |B. |This |is |an |easy |fallacy |to |assume |because |this |could |happen, |but |we
|cannot |always |assume |this |happens. |Some |things |just |happen |due |to |coincidence |and |the |two |things
|really |having |nothing |to |do |with |each |other.
Post |Hoc |Ergo |Propter |Hoc |can |also |be |the |source |of |superstitious |thinking. |Think |about |an |athlete |
who |wears |his |'lucky' |socks |and |the |team |wins |the |game, |you |might |conclude |that |wearing |'lucky' |
socks |leads |to |winning. |Maybe |you |break |a |mirror |and |then |soon |after |you |get |into |an |accident, |you |
might |conclude |that |breaking |the |mirror |led |to |that |misfortune. |These |occurrences |are |merely |
coincidental |and |are |not |the |reason |for |one's |misfortune.
APPEAL |TO |AUTHORITY |- |VERIFIED |ANSWER✔✔-An |Appeal |to |Authority |is |a |fallacy |with |the |following
|form:
, Person |A |is |(claimed |to |be) |an |authority |on |subject |S.
Person |A |makes |claim |C |about |subject |S.
Therefore, |C |is |true |(Nizkor, |2013).
In |the |video |above, |we |see |a |young |man |proceed |with |a |lawsuit |based |on |the |advice |of |his |doctor |
even |though |the |doctor |has |no |legal |background |whatsoever. |This |erroneous |acceptance |is |based |on |
the |belief |that |the |person |is |the |expert |or |authoritative |so |therefore |everything |they |say |must |be |
true. |In |this |case, |the |doctor |was |not |qualified |to |make |a |claim |about |the |legality |of |the |car |cash, |so |
his |reasoning |was |fallacious.
SLIPPERY |SLOPE |- |VERIFIED |ANSWER✔✔-Definition
Slippery |Slope |can |be |described |as |an |analogy |to |take |the |argument |in |one |direction |with |a |series |of |
steps |leading |to |a |much |more |extreme |outcome. |Once |someone |asks |for |one |thing |and |receives |it, |
they |will |not |stop |until |they |have |taken |it |all |(Kirby |& |Goodpaster, |2011, |p.209).
FALLACY |OF |DIVISION |- |VERIFIED |ANSWER✔✔-Definition
What |is |true |for |the |whole |has |to |be |true |for |any |of |the |pieces |of |the |whole |as |well |(Kirby |& |
Goodpaster, |2011, |p.192).
Example
Housing |prices |are |down |in |the |United |States. |This |means |that |housing |prices |are |down |in |my |
neighborhood. |Since |every |neighborhood |is |different |you |cannot |assume |that |just |because |prices |are |
down |nationally |that |they |must |be |down |in |your |neighborhood.
CIRCULAR |REASONING |- |VERIFIED |ANSWER✔✔-Definition
This |fallacy |is |also |known |as |"talking |in |circles". |The |premise |is |restated |instead |of |proven. |The |
conclusion |of |the |argument |is |actually |one |of |the |stated |premises, |so |no |evidence |is |offered |to |
support |the |argument.
Example
CORRECT ANSWERS
APPEAL |TO |IGNORANCE |- |VERIFIED |ANSWER✔✔-An |appeal |to |ignorance |uses |lack |of |evidence |(for |or |
against) |as |the |basis |of |the |argument. |For |example, |if |something |can't |be |disproven, |it |must |be |true!
Example
You |have |a |family |member |who |has |a |terminal |disease. |You |hear |of |a |possible |new |cure |being |
offered |in |another |country. |You |contact |the |group |promoting |this |cure |and |ask |if |it |works. |They |say,
|"No |one |has |ever |shown |that |it |doesn't |work, |so |of |course |it |works!"
HASTY |GENERALIZATION |- |VERIFIED |ANSWER✔✔-Definition
A |hasty |generalization |occurs |'when |a |conclusion |is |drawn |from |a |sample |that |is |too |small |or |
selective |to |assume |with |any |confidence |that |it |represents |the |subject |accurately' |(Goodpaster |& |
Kirby, |2006, |p. |205).
POST |HOC |ERGO |PROPTER |HOC |- |VERIFIED |ANSWER✔✔-Definition
Post |Hoc |Ergo |Propter |Hoc |at |times |is |one |of |the |most |persuasive |fallacies. |Assuming |that |because |B |
follows |A, |A |must |have |caused |B. |This |is |an |easy |fallacy |to |assume |because |this |could |happen, |but |we
|cannot |always |assume |this |happens. |Some |things |just |happen |due |to |coincidence |and |the |two |things
|really |having |nothing |to |do |with |each |other.
Post |Hoc |Ergo |Propter |Hoc |can |also |be |the |source |of |superstitious |thinking. |Think |about |an |athlete |
who |wears |his |'lucky' |socks |and |the |team |wins |the |game, |you |might |conclude |that |wearing |'lucky' |
socks |leads |to |winning. |Maybe |you |break |a |mirror |and |then |soon |after |you |get |into |an |accident, |you |
might |conclude |that |breaking |the |mirror |led |to |that |misfortune. |These |occurrences |are |merely |
coincidental |and |are |not |the |reason |for |one's |misfortune.
APPEAL |TO |AUTHORITY |- |VERIFIED |ANSWER✔✔-An |Appeal |to |Authority |is |a |fallacy |with |the |following
|form:
, Person |A |is |(claimed |to |be) |an |authority |on |subject |S.
Person |A |makes |claim |C |about |subject |S.
Therefore, |C |is |true |(Nizkor, |2013).
In |the |video |above, |we |see |a |young |man |proceed |with |a |lawsuit |based |on |the |advice |of |his |doctor |
even |though |the |doctor |has |no |legal |background |whatsoever. |This |erroneous |acceptance |is |based |on |
the |belief |that |the |person |is |the |expert |or |authoritative |so |therefore |everything |they |say |must |be |
true. |In |this |case, |the |doctor |was |not |qualified |to |make |a |claim |about |the |legality |of |the |car |cash, |so |
his |reasoning |was |fallacious.
SLIPPERY |SLOPE |- |VERIFIED |ANSWER✔✔-Definition
Slippery |Slope |can |be |described |as |an |analogy |to |take |the |argument |in |one |direction |with |a |series |of |
steps |leading |to |a |much |more |extreme |outcome. |Once |someone |asks |for |one |thing |and |receives |it, |
they |will |not |stop |until |they |have |taken |it |all |(Kirby |& |Goodpaster, |2011, |p.209).
FALLACY |OF |DIVISION |- |VERIFIED |ANSWER✔✔-Definition
What |is |true |for |the |whole |has |to |be |true |for |any |of |the |pieces |of |the |whole |as |well |(Kirby |& |
Goodpaster, |2011, |p.192).
Example
Housing |prices |are |down |in |the |United |States. |This |means |that |housing |prices |are |down |in |my |
neighborhood. |Since |every |neighborhood |is |different |you |cannot |assume |that |just |because |prices |are |
down |nationally |that |they |must |be |down |in |your |neighborhood.
CIRCULAR |REASONING |- |VERIFIED |ANSWER✔✔-Definition
This |fallacy |is |also |known |as |"talking |in |circles". |The |premise |is |restated |instead |of |proven. |The |
conclusion |of |the |argument |is |actually |one |of |the |stated |premises, |so |no |evidence |is |offered |to |
support |the |argument.
Example
