Formal and Informal Fallacies MCQ Quiz in मल्याळम - Objective Question with Answer for Formal and Informal Fallacies - സൗജന്യ PDF ഡൗൺലോഡ് ചെയ്യുക

Key Points

 The fallacy committed in the above statement is appeal to majority.

Appeal to Majority:

• Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone argues that something is true or right simply because it is popular or widely accepted.
• In the above statement, the arguer is suggesting that raising the corporate income tax is the most effective way to increase government revenue because opinion polls show widespread support for this approach.
• However, just because a majority of people support an idea does not mean that it is the best idea. There may be other, more effective ways to increase government revenue that are not as popular.

Additional Information

• Appeal to emotion: This fallacy occurs when someone tries to persuade someone by appealing to their emotions rather than their reason. The statement does not appeal to emotion.
• Slippery slope: This fallacy occurs when someone argues that if one event happens, it will inevitably lead to a series of other events, even if there is no evidence to support this claim. The statement does not argue that raising the corporate income tax will lead to a series of other events.
• Appeal to inappropriate authority: This fallacy occurs when someone tries to persuade someone by citing an authority figure who is not actually an expert on the topic at hand. The statement does not cite an authority figure.

The correct answer is False Cause.
Key Points

1. False Cause Fallacy: This is a type of fallacy where one assumes that because one event happened before another, it must have caused it. However, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and there may be other factors that are responsible for the effect.

2. Given argument: The argument states that the death penalty in certain western countries has led to an increase in the crime rate, which has resulted in a greater number of inmates in their prisons. The conclusion drawn from this is that the death penalty is not justifiable.

3. Assumption: The argument assumes that there is a causal relationship between the death penalty and the increase in crime rate and the resulting increase in the number of inmates in prisons. However, this assumption may not be true.

4. Other contributing factors: There could be other factors contributing to the increase in crime rates and the number of inmates, such as poverty, lack of education, unemployment, and drug addiction. The argument fails to provide evidence that the death penalty is the cause of the increase in crime rates and the resulting increase in the number of inmates.

5. False cause fallacy: The argument is based on a false cause fallacy, which occurs when one assumes that because one event followed another, the first event caused the second event, without providing sufficient evidence to support the causal link.

In summary, the argument commits a false cause fallacy by assuming that the death penalty caused the increase in crime rate and the number of inmates without providing sufficient evidence to support this claim. It ignores other factors that could have contributed to the increase in crime rates and the number of inmates.
Additional Information

Straw Man:

• This fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents their opponent's argument in order to make it easier to attack.
• They set up a "straw man" argument that is easy to knock down rather than addressing the actual argument presented.

Hetvâbhâsa is the name given to a fallacy in Indian logic.

Key Points

• The fallacy occurs because the middle term may be the cause but not the reason. 
• The Naiyayikas believe that all valid conclusions have the same logical structures.
• According to the Nyāya philosophy, there are five kind of fallacy occurs due to the middle term: 
  • ​Savyabhichâra (fallacy of the irregular middle)
  • Viruddha (Contradicting reason)
  • Satpratipaka (inferentially contradicted middle)
  •  Asiddha (the unproved middle)
  • Bâdhita (non-inferentially contradicted middle)
• ​Viruddha: Despite being offered to establish the existence of the sâdhya (the character which is inferred), actually establishes the non-existence of the sâdhya
  • For example, Sound is eternal because it is produced. 
  • The middle term Produced doesn't prove the eternality of sound but proves its non-eternality.
  • The middle word disproves the initial proposition and demonstrates its inconsistency.

Thus, According to Nyāya the argument - 'Sound is eternal because it is produced' commits Viruddha (Contradicting reason) fallacy. 

Additional Information

• Savyabhicâra occurs when the middle term is not regularly related to the major term.
• The asiddha is one that hasn't been proven yet but needs to be.
• The fallacy of Satpratipaksa occurs when a hetu that is offered to establish a certain sâdhya in inference is validly contradicted by another hetu that establishes the non-existence of the sâdhya of the first inference.

Fallacies can be either formal or informal. 

Formal Fallacy:

• Most formal fallacies are errors of logic.
• The conclusion doesn’t really “follow from” (is not supported by) the premises.
• Either the premises are untrue or the argument is invalid.

Informal Fallacy: 

• Very often they involve bringing irrelevant information into an argument.
• They are based on assumptions that, when examined, prove to be incorrect.
• Informal fallacies are more dependent on misuse of language and of evidence.

Thus, the correct match is (A) - (IV), (B) - (III), (C) - (II), (D) - (V), (E) - (I).

The correct answer is 'It assumes something to be true simply because it has not been proven false.'

Key Points

• It assumes something to be true simply because it has not been proven false:
  • This fallacy is problematic because it bases the argument's validity on the absence of evidence against it, rather than on actual evidence supporting it.
  • It shifts the burden of proof away from the person making the claim, expecting others to disprove the claim rather than providing evidence to support it.
  • This approach undermines logical reasoning and can lead to accepting false claims as true or true claims as false simply due to the lack of evidence to the contrary.

Additional Information

• It confuses cause and effect within the argument structure:
  • This option describes a different logical fallacy known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc" or false cause, which erroneously assumes that one thing causes another just because they occur sequentially.
• It relies on the argued conclusion being too complex to understand:
  • This choice might refer to the "argument from complexity" fallacy, where an argument is claimed to be true or false based on the complexity or incomprehensibility of the subject, rather than on solid evidence or reasoning.
• It overgeneralizes based on a small sample size:
  • This refers to the "hasty generalization" fallacy, where a broad conclusion is drawn from a small or unrepresentative sample of data, which is a different issue from assuming truth from a lack of evidence.

The correct answer is - Fallacy of composition.

Key PointsFallacy of Composition:-

• This fallacy occurs when one assumes that what is true for the individual parts must also be true for the whole.
• In the given statement, the argument commits this fallacy by assuming that because individual preferences exist for hot cakes and ice creams, combining these two into "hot cake ice cream" would also be desirable.
• This does not necessarily follow, as the qualities that make hot cakes and ice creams enjoyable separately might not do so when combined.

Additional InformationSlippery Slope

• This fallacy argues that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like sliding down a slippery slope.
• The original statement does not predict a series of events leading to a dire outcome; hence, it does not commit this fallacy.

Fallacy of Division

• The opposite of the fallacy of composition, it assumes what is true of the whole must also be true of its parts.
• The statement does not make assumptions about the parts based on the whole; therefore, it does not fit this fallacy.

Hasty Generalization

• This fallacy occurs when a conclusion is drawn from a sample that is too small or not representative.
• The statement does not draw a conclusion from a small or unrepresentative sample but makes an assumption about the combination of two liked items; hence, it is not a hasty generalization.

Key Points

• In this case, the person is attacking the character of the other person (who is telling them to stop smoking) instead of addressing the argument itself.
• The fact that the other person smokes does not mean that they are wrong about the fact that smoking is bad for you.

The other options are incorrect:

• Red Herring is a fallacy that introduces an irrelevant topic into an argument in order to divert attention away from the main issue. In this case, the topic of the other person smoking is not irrelevant to the argument about whether or not they should stop smoking.
• Strawman is a fallacy that distorts an opponent's argument in order to make it easier to attack. In this case, the person is not distorting the argument of the other person. They are simply attacking their character.
• Missing the point (Ignoratio Elenchi) is a fallacy that fails to address the central point of an argument. In this case, the person is addressing the central point of the argument, which is whether or not they should stop smoking.

The correct answer is Weak Analogy

Explanation:

The query explores a classic concept in logic and rhetoric known as a fallacy. Based on the given statements, the task here is to identify the particular type of fallacy being illustrated. The principal issue centers on correctly categorizing the identified fallacy in the example provided. Given the inherent complexities and intricacies in defining fallacies, accurately identifying and classifying the fallacy portrayed becomes crucial.

Concept Explanation:

A weak analogy, also known as a false or faulty analogy, is a type of logical fallacy. It occurs when an argument's analogy, comparison, or metaphor fails because of a key dissimilarity or an irrelevant comparison between two concepts or situations, leading to a weak or invalid inference. The fallacy operates by drawing a conclusion based on the unjustified extrapolation of shared properties of two or more different things

Detailed Answer:

Given the provided statements, the fallacy represented is indeed the 'Weak Analogy'. The argument falsely equates the ownership of guns with the ownership of hockey sticks based on the fact that both can potentially be used to harm others. However, it inadequately considers the inherent differences in the primary purpose of these two items and their relative harm potential. Therefore, the argument presents a weak analogy between gun ownership and hockey stick ownership, as the intended uses and consequences of these items are significantly different

The Correct Answer is Appeal to Ignorance

A fallacy is reasoning that is logically incorrect, undermines the logical validity of an argument, or is recognized as unsound.

Important Points

• Appeal to Ignorance:
  • It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true
  • Example: No one can actually prove that God exists; therefore God does not exist.
  • So similarly as per the question, One must conclude that the immoral behavior of some officials does not erode public morality.

Additional Information

•  Appeal to Pity:
  • it is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his opponent's feelings of pity or guilt.
•  Appeal to Force:
  • It relies on fear as a tool to influence the beliefs of others
  • The bully's argument is what is known as an appeal to force
  • It is based on the threat of harm and is not relevant to the argument itself. In short, the threat does not prove or disprove the truth of the statement.
• Appeal to the People
  • It is a type of arguing that a claim is true because a lot of people believe it, or that a claim is false because a lot of people do not believe it. 
  • Example:"many people buy extended warranties, therefore we should buy one for our new computer".

Fallacies can be either formal or informal. 

Formal Fallacy:

• Most formal fallacies are errors of logic.
• The conclusion doesn’t really “follow from” (is not supported by) the premises.
• Either the premises are untrue or the argument is invalid.

Informal Fallacy: 

• Very often they involve bringing irrelevant information into an argument.
• They are based on assumptions that, when examined, prove to be incorrect.
• Informal fallacies are more dependent on misuse of language and of evidence.

​

Straw man Fallacy:

• The Strawman argument is aptly named after a harmless, lifeless, scarecrow.
• In the strawman argument, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold.
• Instead of contending with the actual argument, he or she attacks the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw, an easily defeated effigy, which the opponent never intended upon defending anyway.
• The strawman argument is a cheap and easy way to make one’s position look stronger than it is.
• Using this fallacy, opposing views are characterized as “non-starters,” lifeless, truthless, and wholly unreliable.
• Example: You say you want to reform the criminal justice system. What, do you want to free all the criminals?

Argumentum ad populum Fallacy:

• Argumentum ad populum is a Latin term meaning "appeal to the people".
• It is an informal fallacy.
• It says that something is right because the majority believes it true.
• It is also known as the bandwagon argument.
• Such arguments often depend on popular generalizations and associations and are widely used in advertising and political campaigns.
• Example: Everyone drives at the same speed, so it shouldn't against the law.

Ad hominem Fallacy:

• Also known as the genetic fallacy. 
• The ad hominem fallacy occurs when we shift our focus from the premises and conclusions of the argument and focus instead on the individual making the argument.
• An easy way to remember this fallacy is to think of it as the personal attack fallacy. 
• Example: I was surprised you agreed with her. She's kind of an extremist.

​
Red herring Fallacy:

• A red herring is an emotionally charged issue brought up to divert attention from something the manipulator wants to avoid.
• It is a statement introducing an unrelated point instead of addressing the question under debate.
• Example: "You asked me why the unemployment rate has risen again, but I'll tell you what's affecting this country's morale in even worse ways than that."

Thus, "You say you want to reform the criminal justice system. What, do you want to free all the criminals? is a form of Straw man Fallacy.