CTS Chapter 7 quiz : Pseudo Reasoning and Fallacies Quiz

Pseudo reasoning is defined as:

• A logical argument with valid premises

• An attempt to persuade that appears to give reasons but provides no good reason

• A formal method of deductive reasoning

• A technique used only in informal discussions

Which of the following are characteristics of pseudo reasoning?

I. Lacks proper logical connection between premises and conclusion
II. Includes both fallacies and faulty argument techniques
III. Always contains true premises
IV. Looks like real argumentation

• I and II

• II and III

• I, II, and IV

• III and IV

TRUE or FALSE: Formal fallacies violate the rules of deductive logic.

• True

• False

The key rule of deductive validity states that:

• All premises must be factually correct

• If premises are true, conclusions must also be true

• Arguments must contain emotional appeals

• Conclusions can be false even with true premises

"If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet. Therefore, it rained." This is an example of:

• Denying the antecedent

• Affirming the consequent

• Deriving 'ought' from 'is'

• Valid reasoning

Which statement about "Denying the Antecedent" is FALSE?

• It follows the structure: If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore Not Q.

• It is a valid form of reasoning

• Q can still be true even if P is false

• It violates deductive logic rules

TRUE or FALSE: The fallacy of deriving 'ought' from 'is' attempts to make moral conclusions from factual observations.

• True

• False

"People speed on highways. Therefore, speeding is morally acceptable." This exemplifies:

• Affirming the consequent

• Denying the antecedent

• Deriving 'ought' from 'is'

• Valid moral reasoning

Which of the following about informal fallacies is correct?

I. They occur in the content rather than logical structure
II. They rely on emotional appeals and psychological biases
III. They are easy to detect due to obvious logical errors
IV. They can be persuasive despite being logically weak

• I and III

• I, II, and IV

• II and III

• I and IV

A red herring fallacy:

• Attacks the person making the argument

• Diverts attention by introducing irrelevant topics

• Presents only two options when more exist

• Assumes the conclusion within the premise