Fight the Fallacy Trivia Quiz

Answer: Hasty generalization

A hasty generalization fallacy, also known as a sweeping generalization or over-generalization, occurs when you use a small sample or insufficient evidence to reach a broad (or general) conclusion. In essence, the argument is flawed because the conclusion cannot truly be reached by using such little proof. In the example, the argument assumes that just because the man is bad at basketball, he must be bad at all sports. That is not true: the man could be very talented at tennis or baseball or football.

You might have heard the term "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" ("after this, therefore because of this"). This is a common type of hasty generalization that incorrectly attributes the causation of one event to another.

Answer: False dilemma

A fallacious argument that is a false dilemma presents two options as the *only* two available choices when there are in fact other alternatives. Politicians often make these types of arguments when speaking to their supporters or during debates. They might argue that their proposed course of action is the only viable one because the other one is dire or unpopular. This fallacy is also known as a "false dichotomy".

A famous example of this fallacy involved former U.S. President George W. Bush, who following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, told countries "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists". The statement omits that there are in fact other nuanced possibilities, such as neutrality or in this case, favoring but not completely supporting the "war on terror".

Answer: Tu quoque

The "tu quoque" or "you too" fallacy is a type of ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument attacks the person making the statement rather than the argument itself. A person using this fallacy may "appeal to hypocrisy" by trying to deflect an accusation back to the accuser.

In the example, the person making the argument is assuming an incorrect conclusion and fails to logically attack the original argument. While it may be hypocritical of the friend to claim smoking is bad while continuing to do so, it doesn't mean that the core argument (smoking is bad for your health) is untrue.

Answer: Bandwagon

The bandwagon appeal, also known as "ad populum" or as an appeal to the masses, is one of the most common types of logical fallacies. An argument with this flaw assumes that just because "everyone", or a large number of people, is doing something, it means that whatever the majority is doing is correct or good. In the example, the speaker assumes that the concert was good just because many people bought tickets. But that might not be true: thousands of people could've just as plausibly bought tickets for a terrible performance. The fact that many people do something doesn't necessarily correlate with it being the right course of action.

Advertisers commonly employ this fallacy in suggesting that their products are superior because many people, or a majority of them, use them.

Answer: Slippery slope

The slippery slope fallacy is an extremely common type of fallacy. An argument with this flaw falsely implies that one specific event or action will lead to a much bigger and worse outcome. In the example, a teacher claims that making an exception for this one student will force him or her to make that exception for everyone else in the future. However, this does not hold water logically: in theory, the teacher could accept this assignment late without having to do so for anyone else in the future.

Politicians and judges are especially prone to using this fallacy when arguing in favor of a particular viewpoint. For example, before same-sex marriage was legalized in the U.S., a common argument was that allowing same-sex couples to marry would mean that polygamy and even marrying dogs would be allowed too. Of course, legalizing same-sex marriage does not automatically result in those other types of marriages being permitted by law.

Answer: Appeal to ignorance

The appeal to ignorance uses the lack of evidence to support an argument to claim that another statement is true or false. It presents a type of false dichotomy because it incorrectly invalidates an opposing viewpoint based on speculation. A very common context in which this fallacy is employed is religion: "you can't prove God exists; therefore he doesn't exist" or "you can't prove God doesn't exist; therefore he exists" are two sides of the same coin.

Another famous use of the appeal to ignorance is often attributed to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who tried to justify the American invasion of Iraq and the supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that were there. Rumsfeld said that the lack of evidence that these WMDs existed didn't mean there was evidence to the contrary.

Answer: Equivocation

The equivocation fallacy occurs when a speaker uses an ambiguous term twice in an argument to try to persuade others. The term with different meanings is used more than once, but each time it has a different meaning attached to it. This example comes from the American animated T.V. show "Family Guy". In its season 9 episode "New Kidney in Town", Peter attempts to make his own Red Bull energy drink by adding kerosene to the mixture. He claims "kerosene is fuel and Red Bull is fuel, so kerosene is Red Bull".

The sentence uses the word "fuel" twice, but the argument ignores the two different meanings of the word. In the first part of the statement, "fuel" refers to the material that makes certain appliances work. But in the second half, Red Bull is "fuel" in that it gives people energy. The fact that Peter mixes these two things up, therefore falling into equivocation, results in him immediately passing out after drinking kerosene.

Answer: Forever fallacy

The forever fallacy assumes that a current state of events will remain like that forever. For example, an executive making the forever fallacy would think that just because his or her company is going well now, it will always be that way in the future.

This way of thinking clearly ignores the possibility that circumstances may change negatively. A company may suddenly start doing well and begin hiring a lot of people because it assumes it will endlessly grow. Unfortunately, that growth may not be as big as expected and the company would be forced to fire many of those workers soon.

Answer: Chronological snobbery

The fallacy of chronological snobbery assumes that something is wrong or inferior just because it is old or has been the status quo for many years. For instance, one may claim that homeschooling a child is much better than traditional schooling because the latter is the way humans have most commonly approached education. Instead of relying on the merits of homeschooling, the speaker tries to be persuasive by attacking traditional schooling simply because it is "the way it has always been done".

The term "chronological snobbery" is often attributed to writer C.S. Lewis, who used it in his book "Surprised by Joy".

Answer: Appeal to pity

There is a broader category of logical fallacies known as "appeal to emotion". Arguments that fall into this fallacy will try to use emotion to support their position, rather than making arguments on the merits of that position. In this example, the speaker uses an appeal to pity by invoking his or her "bad day" as a reason why he/she should not get a ticket.

However, this fails logically because there is no real argument. A police officer may feel bad for this person, but that doesn't mean that such person did not deserve to be ticketed regardless of how it would make them feel.