PHIL 120 Final UPDATED ACTUAL
Questions and CORRECT Answers
Formal fallacy - CORRECT ANSWER - • Fallacy is a defect in reasoning. Formal fallacy
is a defect in the form of the argument. Poor form of the argument. ("affirming the consequent"
is an example - jane and the PB ex) "if x, then y. y. therefore, x." these will be invalid arguments.
Informal fallacy - CORRECT ANSWER - • arises out of the content of the argument, not
the form. It could be a valid argument at first. Then it is shown to be invalid. (ex: light vs light
(weight vs color)). "all x are y. what is w cannot be z. therefore no x are z. (equivocation).
Couldn't detect this fallacy if you only looked at the form of the argument. The premises don't
support the conclusion.
Ad hominem fallacies (informal) definition - CORRECT ANSWER - "to the man" or
"against the person" "fallacies of personal attack". An attack against the person making the
argument, not the argument itself. the standing of the person arguing does not have an effect on
the truth or validity of the claim they make.
Ad hominem fallacy types (6) - CORRECT ANSWER - 1. Abusive ad hominem
2. Circumstantial ad hominem
3. Tu Quoque
4. Guilt by association
6. Ad feminam
Abusive ad hominem - CORRECT ANSWER - presents personal characteristics of
individuals as reasons to discount their ideas. Attacks person directly.
,Circumstantial ad hominem - CORRECT ANSWER - attempts to challenge a person's
position by suggesting that she is advancing it merely to serve her own interests. Focus on the
target's situation rather than personal characteristics. "I deserve a raise because..." EX: "P1:
animals are sentient beings. P2: If a being is sentient, then killing it for food is immoral. C:
killing animals for food is immoral. BUT the person who made the claim works for a vegan food
company so her claim must be wrong/invalid.". although she works for a vegan company and
may have a conflict of interest, she may also have a perfectly valid and sound argument
supporting her conclusion that killing animals for food is immoral.
Tu Quoque ad hominem - CORRECT ANSWER - "you too/also". One accuses a person of
acting in a manner that contradicts some position that she supports and concludes that her view is
worthless. "I can't believe you're trying to convince me to give more money to charity when you
don't give nearly as much as I do." Another example: when using the vegan example saying
killing animals for food is immoral, say the person who made that claim eats meat. Then her
standing doesn't act consistently with her conclusion, therefore I reject her argument. However,
Catherine might have an effective argument and just thinks it is immoral that she eats meat.
Guilt by association ad hominem - CORRECT ANSWER - Whenever one tries to argue
against a certain view by pointing out that some unsavory person is likely to have agreed with it.
Ex: "chocolate chip cookies can't be any good. My philosophy professor loves them and she is
the meanest teacher I've ever had". A claim can be true despite its being endorsed by someone
we don't like.
Genetic fallacy ad hominem - CORRECT ANSWER - occurs whenever an attempt is
made to cast a claim into question by condemning its origin. Ex: "the founder of organization X
served time in prison for embezzlement, so we can conclude that the organization must still be
corrupt". Can also be used positively to support claims, not undermine them.
Ad feminam ad hominem - CORRECT ANSWER - Attempt to discredit a claim on the
grounds that a female person proposed it.
Appeal to the people - CORRECT ANSWER - an informal fallacy. It established the truth
of some claim (P) on the basis that a lot of people believe P to be true. the example isn't
sufficient to establish the truth of the conclusion. While popular opinion might give us a reason
to believe something is true, it is rarely the reason that it is true.
, Appeal to Pity - CORRECT ANSWER - Attempts to evoke the emotions of pity from the
audience and then use that pity alone, rather than reason and evidence, to move the audience to a
desired conclusion. Ex: an attorney's client is charged with armed robbery and the attorney plays
up the clients unfortunate childhood in hopes that the jury will feel sorry for him and be lenient.
This is a fallacy because it treats pity as the only relevant factor to take into account in reaching a
conclusion, ignoring relevant logical considerations.
Irrelevant conclusions - CORRECT ANSWER - When someone puts forward premises in
support of a stated conclusion under discussion, but the premises actually support a different
conclusion, but the presenter doesn't realize it. Ex: senate is debating a bill that would put laptops
in all classrooms. Senator smith is supposed to present an argument for the bill. He says "our
children are our most precious investment. The public schools help prepare the next generation
for responsible adulthood. Only a scrooge would oppose children, therefore, we must pass the
bill." This senator thinks he is arguing in favor of a bill that would give laptops to all schools but
his premises are actually directed at conclusion saying that public schools are a good thing. His
premises do nothing to show that schools will do a better job if each classroom has laptops. The
senator is 'arguing beside the point'. This is an ignoratio elenchi.
Begging the question - CORRECT ANSWER - an argument that assumes a proposition in
need of proof; an argument that is inherently circular; raising the question. To accuse someone of
begging the question is to suggest that they unjustly assumed the proposition in need of proof.
Ex: -Joe: god exists. -Fred: why believe that? - Joe: because god exists. there are three types of
this.
3 types of begging the question - CORRECT ANSWER - 1. Question begging concerning
an unsupported premise
2. Question begging in the colloquial sense
3. Circular reasoning
a. By equivalency: one of the premises asserts a proposition equivalent to the argument's
conclusion.
b. By dependency: the conclusion and the premise are mutually dependent.
Red herring - CORRECT ANSWER - Occurs when an arguer diverts attention from the
point at hand by introducing an irrelevant issue into the discussion, thus throwing the argument
off track. It is presented to avoid the conclusion of the argument.
Questions and CORRECT Answers
Formal fallacy - CORRECT ANSWER - • Fallacy is a defect in reasoning. Formal fallacy
is a defect in the form of the argument. Poor form of the argument. ("affirming the consequent"
is an example - jane and the PB ex) "if x, then y. y. therefore, x." these will be invalid arguments.
Informal fallacy - CORRECT ANSWER - • arises out of the content of the argument, not
the form. It could be a valid argument at first. Then it is shown to be invalid. (ex: light vs light
(weight vs color)). "all x are y. what is w cannot be z. therefore no x are z. (equivocation).
Couldn't detect this fallacy if you only looked at the form of the argument. The premises don't
support the conclusion.
Ad hominem fallacies (informal) definition - CORRECT ANSWER - "to the man" or
"against the person" "fallacies of personal attack". An attack against the person making the
argument, not the argument itself. the standing of the person arguing does not have an effect on
the truth or validity of the claim they make.
Ad hominem fallacy types (6) - CORRECT ANSWER - 1. Abusive ad hominem
2. Circumstantial ad hominem
3. Tu Quoque
4. Guilt by association
6. Ad feminam
Abusive ad hominem - CORRECT ANSWER - presents personal characteristics of
individuals as reasons to discount their ideas. Attacks person directly.
,Circumstantial ad hominem - CORRECT ANSWER - attempts to challenge a person's
position by suggesting that she is advancing it merely to serve her own interests. Focus on the
target's situation rather than personal characteristics. "I deserve a raise because..." EX: "P1:
animals are sentient beings. P2: If a being is sentient, then killing it for food is immoral. C:
killing animals for food is immoral. BUT the person who made the claim works for a vegan food
company so her claim must be wrong/invalid.". although she works for a vegan company and
may have a conflict of interest, she may also have a perfectly valid and sound argument
supporting her conclusion that killing animals for food is immoral.
Tu Quoque ad hominem - CORRECT ANSWER - "you too/also". One accuses a person of
acting in a manner that contradicts some position that she supports and concludes that her view is
worthless. "I can't believe you're trying to convince me to give more money to charity when you
don't give nearly as much as I do." Another example: when using the vegan example saying
killing animals for food is immoral, say the person who made that claim eats meat. Then her
standing doesn't act consistently with her conclusion, therefore I reject her argument. However,
Catherine might have an effective argument and just thinks it is immoral that she eats meat.
Guilt by association ad hominem - CORRECT ANSWER - Whenever one tries to argue
against a certain view by pointing out that some unsavory person is likely to have agreed with it.
Ex: "chocolate chip cookies can't be any good. My philosophy professor loves them and she is
the meanest teacher I've ever had". A claim can be true despite its being endorsed by someone
we don't like.
Genetic fallacy ad hominem - CORRECT ANSWER - occurs whenever an attempt is
made to cast a claim into question by condemning its origin. Ex: "the founder of organization X
served time in prison for embezzlement, so we can conclude that the organization must still be
corrupt". Can also be used positively to support claims, not undermine them.
Ad feminam ad hominem - CORRECT ANSWER - Attempt to discredit a claim on the
grounds that a female person proposed it.
Appeal to the people - CORRECT ANSWER - an informal fallacy. It established the truth
of some claim (P) on the basis that a lot of people believe P to be true. the example isn't
sufficient to establish the truth of the conclusion. While popular opinion might give us a reason
to believe something is true, it is rarely the reason that it is true.
, Appeal to Pity - CORRECT ANSWER - Attempts to evoke the emotions of pity from the
audience and then use that pity alone, rather than reason and evidence, to move the audience to a
desired conclusion. Ex: an attorney's client is charged with armed robbery and the attorney plays
up the clients unfortunate childhood in hopes that the jury will feel sorry for him and be lenient.
This is a fallacy because it treats pity as the only relevant factor to take into account in reaching a
conclusion, ignoring relevant logical considerations.
Irrelevant conclusions - CORRECT ANSWER - When someone puts forward premises in
support of a stated conclusion under discussion, but the premises actually support a different
conclusion, but the presenter doesn't realize it. Ex: senate is debating a bill that would put laptops
in all classrooms. Senator smith is supposed to present an argument for the bill. He says "our
children are our most precious investment. The public schools help prepare the next generation
for responsible adulthood. Only a scrooge would oppose children, therefore, we must pass the
bill." This senator thinks he is arguing in favor of a bill that would give laptops to all schools but
his premises are actually directed at conclusion saying that public schools are a good thing. His
premises do nothing to show that schools will do a better job if each classroom has laptops. The
senator is 'arguing beside the point'. This is an ignoratio elenchi.
Begging the question - CORRECT ANSWER - an argument that assumes a proposition in
need of proof; an argument that is inherently circular; raising the question. To accuse someone of
begging the question is to suggest that they unjustly assumed the proposition in need of proof.
Ex: -Joe: god exists. -Fred: why believe that? - Joe: because god exists. there are three types of
this.
3 types of begging the question - CORRECT ANSWER - 1. Question begging concerning
an unsupported premise
2. Question begging in the colloquial sense
3. Circular reasoning
a. By equivalency: one of the premises asserts a proposition equivalent to the argument's
conclusion.
b. By dependency: the conclusion and the premise are mutually dependent.
Red herring - CORRECT ANSWER - Occurs when an arguer diverts attention from the
point at hand by introducing an irrelevant issue into the discussion, thus throwing the argument
off track. It is presented to avoid the conclusion of the argument.
