Analyzing Arguments Practice

What is the logical fallacy in the following statement: 'If you don't support the new Supreme Court nomination, then you must not care about justice or the legal system'?

• Slippery slope fallacy

• Ad hominem fallacy

• Appeal to authority fallacy

• False dilemma or black-and-white fallacy

Evaluate the following premise: 'All judges are part of the judiciary. Supreme Court judges are part of the judiciary. Therefore, Supreme Court judges are part of the judges.' Is the conclusion valid?

• No, because Supreme Court judges could be an exception to the rule

• Yes

• No, because not all members of the judiciary are judges

• No, because the premise does not mention Supreme Court judges specifically

Identify the rhetorical strategy used in the following argument: 'You should support this Supreme Court decision because everyone else does.'

• Bandwagon appeal

• Appeal to emotion

• Appeal to authority

• Appeal to tradition

Distinguish between deductive and inductive reasoning with an example for each, using the context of Supreme Court decisions.

• Deductive reasoning: The Supreme Court feels a law is unjust, so it must be unconstitutional.

• Example of deductive reasoning: All laws that infringe on constitutional rights are invalid. A new law restricts freedom of speech. Therefore, this law is invalid. Example of inductive reasoning: Every time the Supreme Court has ruled on free speech, it has expanded protections. Therefore, the Supreme Court is likely to expand free speech protections in future cases.

• Inductive reasoning: All the Supreme Court decisions I have studied enhance civil liberties, so all Supreme Court decisions must enhance civil liberties.

• Deductive reasoning: If the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional, it cannot be enforced. The Supreme Court has declared the law unconstitutional, so it cannot be enforced.

Analyze the structure of the argument in the following statement: 'If the Supreme Court imposes stricter regulations on campaign financing, then political candidates will rely less on large donations. Therefore, imposing stricter regulations on campaign financing is an effective way to reduce the influence of big money in politics.'

• The argument is a comparison statement followed by a recommendation. It uses the form of 'If A, then B. Therefore, A is better than C.'

• The argument is a conditional statement followed by a hypothesis. It uses the form of 'If A, then B. Therefore, A might lead to C.'

• The structure of the argument is a cause and effect statement followed by a prediction. It uses the form of 'If A, then B. Therefore, A will result in C.'

• The structure of the argument is a conditional statement followed by a conclusion. It uses the form of 'If A, then B. Therefore, A is effective for C.' This is a valid deductive argument.

What logical fallacy is present in the argument: 'You can't prove that the Supreme Court's decisions are always just, so they must be inherently fair'?

• Appeal to ignorance

• Ad hominem

• Circular reasoning

• False cause

Evaluate the premise: 'All supreme court judges are dishonest. John is a supreme court judge. Therefore, John is dishonest.' Is the conclusion valid?

• Depends on the situation

• No

• Maybe

• Yes

Recognize the rhetorical strategy used in the statement: 'If the Supreme Court does not act on climate change regulations now, our future generations will suffer the consequences.'

• Appeal to consequences

• False dilemma

• Ad hominem

• Appeal to authority

Provide an example of deductive reasoning and explain why it is deductive.

• All Supreme Court justices must have a law degree. John is a Supreme Court justice. Therefore, John does not have a law degree.

• All Supreme Court justices must have a law degree. John is a Supreme Court justice. Therefore, John has a law degree.

• All Supreme Court justices must have a law degree. John is a doctor. Therefore, John has a law degree.

• All Supreme Court justices do not need a law degree. John is a Supreme Court justice. Therefore, John does not have a law degree.

Examine the structure of the argument in the following statement: 'All Supreme Court justices have law degrees. Justice Doe has a law degree. Therefore, Justice Doe is a Supreme Court justice.'

• The argument follows the structure of a disjunctive syllogism, specifically the form of 'A or B, not A, therefore B.' Therefore, the conclusion that Justice Doe is a Supreme Court justice is valid based on the given premises.

• The argument follows the structure of a conditional syllogism, specifically the form of 'If A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C.' Therefore, the conclusion that Justice Doe is a Supreme Court justice is valid based on the given premises.

• The argument follows the structure of a categorical syllogism, specifically the form of 'All A are B, C is A, therefore C is B.' Therefore, the conclusion that Justice Doe is a Supreme Court justice is valid based on the given premises.

• The argument follows the structure of a hypothetical syllogism, specifically the form of 'If A then B, A is true, therefore B is true.' Therefore, the conclusion that Justice Doe is a Supreme Court justice is valid based on the given premises.