EXERCISES FOR CRITICAL THINKING: ANSWERS
(Please note: these are the first answers that came to mind. You may find other logical problems in these statements.
Consult with your for explanations of these fallacies.
1.Begging the question. The judge is assuming the answer to the very question that a trial is supposed to answer.
2. Non sequitur. It doesn’t follow that because something is good for us the government should enforce compliance. It
also could be “straw man” since McDonalds’ is not the only entity that inspires unhealthy nutrition (and if you eat
McDonalds’ salads, you’re not eating unhealthily).
3. Post hoc fallacy. There is no proof that watching these particular TV shows is the cause of high or low school
grades. It’s more reasonable to suppose that children who do well or poorly in school select one show or the other
because of its appeal to their level of intelligence and achievement.
4. Hasty generalization or small sample. A faulty prediction for one month is not enough for an accusation of
unreliability. Moreover, the mistaken predictions may not be the forecaster’s fault; the models s/he uses may be
unreliable, climactic conditions may have changed, or an unforeseen event (such as a volcanic cloud) may have
affected the weather. And weather, of course, is not a predictable process, so quality control in forecasting is almost
impossible, despite the mayor of Moscow’s threats.
5. Two wrongs don’t make a right.The writer thinks that death and danger are unacceptable for men in combat, but
subjecting women to death and danger doesn’t make these “wrongs” more acceptable. This could also be equivocation.
Moreover, this could be ignoring the question because the argument shifts the grounds that are usually used to exclude
women from combat.
6. Faulty appeal to authority/celebrity. Taste is a matter of individual preference. It would be hard to prove that Cher
is superior to anybody else in her choice of a sweetener. She may only be posing for a paid advertisement.)
7. Two wrongs don’t make a right (or tu quoque). The arguer seems to infer that gambling is wrong, but legalizing it
won’t make it morally right. (This is what Norm Cousins calls ‘cop-out realism,” or “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.”)
This could also be the bandwagon fallacy—everybody does it so it must not be wrong….
8. Unknown facts or faulty comparison or non sequitur. What was money spent for in the past? Have conditions
changed that may make the expenditure of more money appropriate now? Even though a great deal of money has been
spent, have we spent enough and in the right places? (Where does our state stand in per capita expeditures on
education, for instance?)
9. Non sequitur. It doesn’t follow that campus newspapers select the best or even good writers. They usually have to
settle for those who make themselves available or those who can make deadlines. And writers on a student paper like
The Johnsonian are usually just learning their craft, so the quality of their writing may be uneven, or due to good
editing, etc.
10. Begging the question or circular argument. The arguer assumes that standard English is not needed because not
all employment needs Standard English, but that remains to be proved. Standard English has other uses unrelated to
employment. It’s circular in that the speaker is saying “We don’t need Standard English because we don’t need
Standard English.”
11. Faulty definition or equivocation. In this case, discrimination means “making choices based on applicable
standards.” It should not necessarily be considered a negative thing. To perform their duties, which may involve
physical exertion, police officers (or other public officials such as firefighters) may reasonably be required to meet
certain physical standards.
12. Faulty comparison or begging the question. Qualified lawyers and law students are different. Lawyers have
passed the very rigorous bar exam (without using books) and thus proven they know the law; they use books to
research precedents, not to show that they understand basic torts. By definition a student is still being tested and access
to information in books during the testing process may defeat the purposes of testing.
13. Faulty definition or equivocation or sweeping generalization. Chemicals are the building blocks of nature. Some
may be unsafe, but they are not all synonymous with “poison” by any means—yet this arguer seems to imply that all
chemicals are bad. Water, for instance, is made up of the chemicals hydrogen and oxygen.
14. Begging the question or false analogy. The arguer assumes that the only relevant criterion for choosing courses is
payment of tuition. But a student enters into an implicit contract when he or she enrolls in the college or university and
accepts the criteria laid down by the institution for the granting of a diploma. Likewise students do not know what well-
educated people in their field know, and so their choices may not lead to earning the diploma. And education is not like
shopping at the mall—you don’t choose courses based on whether you like them or not, but on their ability to help you
master an area of study.
