This Doesn't Make Any Sense Trivia Quiz

Answer: Ad feminam

Ad feminam (meaning to the woman) is a fallacy that tries to discredit the argument being made simply because the arguer is a woman rather than focusing on the argument itself. It is part of the larger categories fallacies called ad hominem (meaning to the person).

In the example, the speaker is discrediting June's automobile knowledge on the basis that she, as a woman, would know nothing about a topic that is stereotypically masculine in nature.

Answer: Nirvana fallacy

The Nirvana fallacy is the logical fallacy that rejects solutions because they are not perfect. Oftentimes, this leaves the original problem to get worse or continue on without any solution at all. It is better to solve as much of the problem as possible.

In this example, the speaker hates the president but is also rejecting the solution to him by refusing to vote for his opponent because she is not perfect in the speaker's mind.

Answer: False dilemma

A false dilemma is a fallacy that assumes there are only two options to a situation. This is also commonly called an either/or dilemma.

In the example, the speaker is assuming that Jillian must be married because she rejected him. But there are many other reasons for why Jillian might have rejected him as well. She might simply not be into him, she might not have any interest in men in general or she might be in a committed relationship but not married.

Answer: Survivorship bias

Survivorship bias is the logical fallacy that focuses on a very small group of people who overcame some hardship but ignoring the majority who didn't survive.

In the example, Andrew may have once been down and out and the world is full of similar stories of people like Andrew who later saw success. But the truth is that the vast majority of people who were once like Andrew will not become CEOs of large companies.

Answer: McNamara fallacy

The McNamara fallacy is a logical fallacy that judges the success of something based on irrelevant criteria. It is named after Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War, who judged the success of the war based on how many enemies were killed instead of more telling indicators.

In the example, the speaker is saying Michael should have won because he is better looking. But tennis isn't a beauty contest. The winner is the player who wins the most sets.

Answer: Prosecutor's fallacy

The prosecutor's fallacy is a logical fallacy that equates a very small chance of something happening to no chance of it happening. In the example, it is highly unlikely the meteorite will crash into the speaker's house but that does not mean there is absolutely no chance it will happen.

The name of this fallacy comes from prosecutors and their tendency to use DNA testing and other tests to determine the guilt of a defendant. Such tests are very accurate but they are not foolproof.

Answer: Kettle logic

Kettle logic is the idea that presenting more evidence, often contradictory, is better than providing better quality evidence.

The speaker here is trying to defend themselves, but is actually hurting his case. If the speaker does not know where Rachel lives, how does he or she know that all the doors and windows were locked?

Answer: False attribution

False attribution is a logical fallacy where someone asks an unqualified person their opinion on something.

In this case, the surfer is likely not an expert on dinosaur bones. False attribution is closely related to another fallacy called false authority. The difference is that in false attribution the speaker is seeking the advice from an unqualified person where in false authority, the speaker is the unqualified person giving their opinion unprompted.

Answer: Overwhelming exception

Overwhelming exception is a logical fallacy where the speaker tries to remove certain facts to make their statement correct. However, what is removed is quite substantial.

In this case, the speaker is saying Ian never did anything for him except saving his life, which is a pretty big exception.

Answer: Chronological snobbery

Chronological snobbery is the logical fallacy that the present time is better than any time in the past because society is more advanced today.

In the example, it is hard to argue that our understanding of astronomy isn't more advanced than the ancient Romans, but it attempts to write off any astronomical accomplishments the ancient Romans made. It also attempts to portray the ancient Romans as uninformed on the topic.