Preview Extract
Chapter 14: Argumentation and Critical Thinking 14.1 Multiple Choice 1. The process of advancing claims supported by good reasons and allowing others to test those claims or to offer counterarguments is called a. invention. b. actualization. c. argumentation. d. stock issue analysis. Answer: c. argumentation. Rationale: Argumentation involves presenting claims supported by reasons and engaging with others to test those claims or offer counterarguments. It is a process of logical reasoning and persuasive communication. 2. The process of advancing claims supported by good reasons and allowing others to test those claims is called a. criticism. b. fallacy. c. reasoning. d. argumentation. Answer: d. argumentation. Rationale: Argumentation involves presenting claims supported by reasons and inviting others to evaluate those claims. It is a process that requires logical reasoning and the ability to respond to criticism. 3. Argumentation commits the speaker to communicate by using a. good emotion. b. good reasoning. c. good appeals. d. good credibility. Answer: b. good reasoning. Rationale: Argumentation involves presenting claims supported by good reasoning, which means using logical and rational arguments to support your claims. While emotion, appeals, and credibility can enhance an argument, the foundation of argumentation is sound reasoning. 4. The process of careful assessment and judgment of ideas is called a(n) a. argument. b. criticism. c. claim. d. counterargument. Answer: b. criticism. Rationale: Criticism involves evaluating and judging ideas or arguments. It requires careful assessment to determine the validity and strength of claims or arguments. 5. A claim of fact can be described as a. asserting that something is or is not the case. b. asserting the intrinsic worth of a belief or action in question. c. recommending a course of action of which you want the audience to approve. Answer: a. asserting that something is or is not the case. Rationale: A claim of fact is a statement that asserts whether something is true or false, existing or not existing, or the case or not the case. It focuses on presenting information or evidence to support a particular assertion about the state of affairs. Therefore, option a accurately describes a claim of fact as asserting the truth or falsity of a statement based on evidence or logical reasoning. Option b describes a claim of value, which pertains to the intrinsic worth of a belief or action, and option c describes a claim of policy, which recommends a specific course of action for the audience to approve. These types of claims are distinct from a claim of fact, which deals with verifiable statements about reality. 6. If you were trying to convince an audience that "A fetus is a human being from the moment of conception," you would be presenting a claim of a. fact. b. value. c. policy. Answer: a. fact. Rationale: The statement "A fetus is a human being from the moment of conception" is a factual claim about the nature of a fetus. It seeks to establish a truth about the biological status of a fetus. 7. Which of the following would be a persuasive speech on a claim of fact? a. a retirement party b. a church banquet c. an honors banquet d. purchasing a hybrid automobile Answer: d. purchasing a hybrid automobile Rationale: A persuasive speech on a claim of fact would focus on presenting evidence and arguments to support a factual statement. In this case, "purchasing a hybrid automobile" could be supported by factual information about the benefits of hybrid vehicles. 8. A claim of value can be described as a. asserting that a given state of affairs exists or that something is indeed the case. b. asserting the intrinsic worth of a belief or action in question. c. recommending a course of action of which you want the audience to approve. Answer: b. asserting the intrinsic worth of a belief or action in question. Rationale: A claim of value asserts the merit or worth of something, such as a belief, action, or concept. It involves making judgments about what is good, bad, desirable, or undesirable. 9. If you sought to convince an audience that "Steven Spielberg was the greatest director of motion pictures in modern times," you would be presenting a claim of a. fact. b. value. c. policy. Answer: b. value. Rationale: The statement "Steven Spielberg was the greatest director of motion pictures in modern times" involves a judgment about the value of Spielberg's work compared to other directors. It is a claim of value. 10. A claim of policy can be described as a. asserting that a given state of affairs exists or that something is indeed the case. b. asserting the intrinsic worth of a belief or action in question. c. recommending a course of action of which you want the audience to approve. Answer: c. recommending a course of action of which you want the audience to approve. Rationale: A claim of policy involves advocating for a specific course of action or policy that the speaker wants the audience to endorse or support. It is about recommending a particular action or change in behavior. 11. Considering whether the benefits of a proposal exceed its costs or disadvantages is a relevant response to a claim of a. fact. b. value. c. policy. d. reasoning. Answer: c. policy. Rationale: When evaluating a claim of policy, one considers the practical implications of the proposed action, including whether the benefits outweigh the costs or disadvantages. This assessment is central to policy-making and decision-making processes. 12. If you were to try to convince an audience that "the movie 'Mississippi Burning' ought to be awarded the Academy Award for best picture," you would be presenting a claim of a. fact. b. value. c. policy. Answer: c. policy. Rationale: This statement advocates for a specific action—awarding the movie "Mississippi Burning" the Academy Award for best picture. It is a claim of policy because it recommends a course of action. 13. If your choice of evidence creates in your listeners a desire to become involved, we could say your evidence was __________ relevant. a. rationally b. motivationally c. ethically d. argumentatively Answer: b. motivationally Rationale: Motivational relevance refers to evidence that not only supports an argument logically but also creates an emotional or motivational response in the audience, encouraging them to become involved or take action. 14. A process of connecting something that is known or believed to a concept or idea that you wish others to accept is called a. criticism. b. argumentation. c. reasoning. d. claim. Answer: c. reasoning. Rationale: Reasoning is the process of connecting known or believed information to a new concept or idea, in order to persuade others to accept that new concept or idea. 15. You notice that your friend has been withdrawing from her usual activities, declines invitations to get together with friends, and her appetite has declined significantly. You decide she may be suffering from depression. What kind of reasoning was involved? a. reasoning from example b. reasoning from generalization c. reasoning from sign d. reasoning from parallel case Answer: c. reasoning from sign Rationale: Reasoning from sign involves drawing a conclusion based on observable indicators or signs that suggest a particular condition or situation. In this case, the signs observed in your friend's behavior lead you to conclude that she may be suffering from depression. 16. Reasoning from examples is also called what kind of reasoning? a. inductive b. deductive c. causative d. significant Answer: a. inductive Rationale: Reasoning from examples, also known as inductive reasoning, involves drawing a general conclusion based on specific examples or instances. It moves from the specific to the general. 17. You notice that a second Greek restaurant failed soon after opening. You decide the community simply won't support two Greek restaurants and opt to open a Chinese restaurant. This reflects reasoning from a. example. b. generalization. c. sign. d. cause. Answer: a. example. Rationale: Reasoning from example involves using specific instances or examples to draw a general conclusion. In this case, the failure of a second Greek restaurant is used as an example to support the general conclusion that the community won't support two Greek restaurants. 18. The argument, "All red heads have hot tempers. Janice is a red head. Therefore, Janice has a hot temper," is an example of what kind of reasoning? a. reasoning from example b. reasoning from generalization c. reasoning from signs d. reasoning from causal relations Answer: b. reasoning from generalization Rationale: This argument uses a generalization about redheads having hot tempers to conclude that Janice, who is a redhead, must also have a hot temper. It is an example of reasoning from generalization. 19. “The begonias are all dead. John forgot to water them;” is an example of reasoning from a. generalization. b. sign. c. example. d. parallel case. Answer: b. sign. Rationale: Reasoning from sign involves drawing a conclusion based on observable indicators or signs that suggest a particular cause or explanation. In this case, the dead begonias are a sign that John forgot to water them. 20. Your roommate, Lionel, seems to be falling in love with Zamzam. Lionel is Catholic and Zamzam is Muslim. Your Aunt Martha, who is Catholic, married a Jew and their marriage was a disaster. You decide to urge Lionel to back away from this relationship. Your reasoning is based upon reasoning from a. example. b. sign. c. cause. d. parallel case. Answer: d. parallel case. Rationale: Reasoning from parallel case involves drawing a conclusion based on a similar situation or case. In this case, the speaker is using Aunt Martha's failed marriage to a person of a different faith as a parallel case to suggest that Lionel's relationship with someone of a different faith may also be problematic. 21. Deciding that the best program for a new fitness club would be one that is similar to two other popular fitness clubs in nearby towns would be an example of reasoning from a. example. b. sign. c. parallel case. d. causal relation. Answer: c. parallel case. Rationale: Reasoning from parallel case involves drawing a conclusion based on a similar situation or case. In this example, the decision for the new fitness club is based on the success of similar programs in other towns, which is reasoning from parallel cases. 22. Telling an audience that children watching too much television will lead them to commit violent acts is an example of reasoning from a. example. b. parallel case. c. sign. d. causal relation. Answer: d. causal relation. Rationale: This statement suggests a causal relationship between watching too much television and committing violent acts. It implies that one leads to the other, which is reasoning from a causal relation. 23. "Are the instances fairly chosen?" is an appropriate question to test reasoning from a. example. b. sign. c. parallel case. d. generalization. Answer: a. example. Rationale: Reasoning from example involves using specific instances or examples to support a general conclusion. Ensuring that the instances chosen are representative and relevant is important in this type of reasoning. 24. "Are the similarities you have pointed out the relevant and important ones?" is an appropriate question to test reasoning from a. generalization. b. example. c. sign. d. parallel case. Answer: d. parallel case. Rationale: Reasoning from parallel case involves drawing a conclusion based on similarities between cases or situations. Ensuring that the similarities are relevant and important is crucial in this type of reasoning. 25. Deciding to drop out of school after failing one course is an example of a(n) a. hasty generalization. b. false division. c. genetic fallacy. d. appeal to ignorance. Answer: a. hasty generalization. Rationale: A hasty generalization is a conclusion drawn from insufficient or selective evidence. In this case, the decision to drop out of school after failing one course is based on a single instance and does not consider other factors or possibilities. 26. "The First Amendment was framed by our forefathers to protect the states from federal control. It was never intended to prevent the states from controlling objectionable speech. Therefore, the states should be allowed to control obscene, offensive, and abusive speech." This argument most likely reflects the fallacy of a. hasty generalization. b. genetics. c. begging the question. d. appeal to ignorance. Answer: b. genetics. Rationale: The argument is based on the origin or source of the First Amendment rather than the content or intent of the amendment itself, which is a fallacy of genetics or origins. 27. The use of Vanessa Williams to sell a particular brand of acne products might reflect a fallacy of a. genetics or origins. b. appeal to ignorance. c. appeal to authority. d. bandwagon. Answer: c. appeal to authority. Rationale: Using Vanessa Williams as an authority figure to sell acne products implies that her endorsement makes the product effective, which is a fallacy of appeal to authority. 28. Everyone else is taking a dive into below-zero-temperature water in the middle of winter and they are trying to convince you that you should also take the plunge. This is an example of a. sequential fallacy. b. hasty generalization. c. bandwagon fallacy. d. appeal to authority. Answer: c. bandwagon fallacy. Rationale: The argument is based on the premise that because everyone else is doing something, you should do it too, which is a fallacy of bandwagon. 29. The primacy-recency effect refers to a. giving your speech near the beginning or the end of the occasion. b. putting your strongest arguments first or last in your speech. c. making your primary argument the most recent one. d. making sure your primary arguments are made up from the most recent evidence. Answer: b. putting your strongest arguments first or last in your speech. Rationale: The primacy-recency effect refers to the tendency of people to remember information better when it is presented either at the beginning (primacy) or at the end (recency) of a presentation. By putting your strongest arguments first or last, you increase the likelihood that they will be remembered. 14.2 True/False 1. Argumentation is the process of offering an opinion or stating information. Answer: False Rationale: Argumentation is the process of presenting claims supported by reasons and engaging with others to test those claims or offer counterarguments. It involves more than just stating information or offering an opinion; it requires logical reasoning and the presentation of evidence. 2. Criticism is a matter of supporting your assessment, evaluation, and judgment of ideas and motives with reasons. Answer: True Rationale: Criticism involves evaluating and judging ideas or arguments. It requires providing reasons to support your assessment and evaluation of those ideas or arguments. 3. One of the three essential elements needed to build an argument is the claim or proposition that you are defending. Answer: True Rationale: The three essential elements of an argument are the claim (or proposition), the evidence (or reasons), and the warrant (or reasoning that connects the evidence to the claim). The claim is the statement that the argument is trying to prove or support. 4. A claim of fact asserts that something is or is not the case. Answer: True Rationale: A claim of fact is a statement that asserts whether something is true or false, existing or not existing, or the case or not the case. It focuses on presenting information or evidence to support a particular assertion about the state of affairs. Therefore, the statement is true because a claim of fact deals with verifiable statements about reality, asserting the truth or falsity of a statement based on evidence or logical reasoning. 5. A claim of fact asserts that something is good or bad, desirable or undesirable. Answer: False Rationale: A claim of fact is focused on asserting the truth or falsity of a statement, not on evaluating the goodness or desirability of something. That falls under claims of value. 6. Both persuasion and argumentation attempt to convince audiences. Answer: True Rationale: Both persuasion and argumentation aim to convince audiences, but they do so in different ways. Persuasion often involves appealing to emotions and values, while argumentation relies more on logic and reasoning. 7. A claim is a process of connecting something that is known or believed to another fact. Answer: False Rationale: A claim is a statement that asserts something to be true or false. It is the central point of an argument that the speaker is trying to prove or support. 8. "Winters are cold in Wisconsin" is a claim of fact. Answer: True Rationale: This statement is a claim of fact because it asserts a truth about the weather in Wisconsin. 9. Persuasion and argumentation work through emotion. Answer: False Rationale: While emotions can play a role in persuasion and argumentation, the foundation of both is reasoning and evidence. Emotions can be used to enhance an argument, but they are not the primary means through which persuasion and argumentation work. 10. One of the elements needed to build an argument is the reasoning pattern that is used. Answer: True Rationale: The reasoning pattern, or the way in which the argument is structured and the evidence is presented, is an essential element of building an argument. Different types of reasoning patterns include inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and causal reasoning. 11. Claims of value use the question,"By what standards is something to be judged?" Answer: True Rationale: Claims of value involve making judgments about the merit, worth, or importance of something based on certain standards or criteria. The question "By what standards is something to be judged?" is relevant to evaluating claims of value. 12. A claim of value can be tested for validity by asking, "Is the proposal practical?" Answer: False Rationale: A claim of value is not typically tested for validity based on practicality. Instead, it is evaluated based on the standards or criteria used to judge the value of something, such as ethical, aesthetic, or moral considerations. 13. The two types of reasoning are rationally relevant and motivationally relevant. Answer: False Rationale: The two types of reasoning are deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning involves applying general principles to specific cases to derive conclusions, while inductive reasoning involves using specific examples or instances to draw general conclusions. 14. While your evidence must be logically relevant, it need NOT always be motivationally relevant. Answer: False Rationale: Effective evidence should be both logically relevant (related to the claim being made) and motivationally relevant (appealing to the audience's interests, values, or emotions). Both types of relevance are important in constructing persuasive arguments. 15. Once you've determined the type of evidence required for your argument, you need to determine which specific evidence will generate the best response. Answer: True Rationale: After determining the type of evidence needed to support your argument (such as examples, statistics, expert testimony, etc.), you must then select specific evidence that is compelling and relevant to your audience to generate the best response. 16. A speaker should consider the listeners' demographic or psychological characteristics to choose the most effective evidence for them. Answer: True Rationale: To effectively persuade an audience, a speaker should consider the listeners' characteristics, such as their beliefs, values, attitudes, and knowledge, in selecting evidence that will resonate with them and be most persuasive. 17. Having been bitten by a cocker spaniel and a german shepherd, Joe has concluded that no dog can be trusted. Though this conclusion is fallacious, Joe is reasoning from example. Answer: True Rationale: Joe is using specific examples (being bitten by a cocker spaniel and a german shepherd) to draw a general conclusion (no dog can be trusted), which is reasoning from example. However, his conclusion is fallacious because it is based on a limited sample size and does not account for the behavior of all dogs. 18. Applying a general truth to specific situations is called deduction. Answer: True Rationale: Deduction involves applying general principles or truths to specific cases to derive conclusions. It is a form of reasoning that moves from the general to the specific. 19. The difference between reasoning from signs and reasoning from causal relations is that signs assume that one event is the direct result of another, while causality assumes that only one event follows or precedes another. Answer: False Rationale: Reasoning from signs involves drawing a conclusion based on observable indicators or signs that suggest a particular condition or situation. Causality, on the other hand, involves understanding the relationship between cause and effect, where one event directly influences another. 20. The notion that "this plan worked at Department Store A, therefore it should work at Department Store B" reflects reasoning from parallel cases. Answer: True Rationale: Reasoning from parallel cases involves drawing a conclusion based on similar situations or cases. In this example, the speaker is assuming that because a plan worked at one department store, it should work at another department store, which is reasoning from parallel cases. 21. Reasoning is a process of connecting something that is known or believed (the evidence) to some concept or idea (the claim) you wish others to accept. Answer: True Rationale: Reasoning is the process of making connections between evidence and claims. It involves presenting evidence to support a claim and explaining how the evidence leads to the acceptance of the claim. 22. The reasoning process is the fulcrum on which arguments pivot. Answer: True Rationale: The reasoning process is central to arguments. It is the mechanism through which evidence is used to support claims, making it the pivotal point around which arguments are built. 23. A fallacy is a flaw in the motivational properties of an argument or inference. Answer: False Rationale: A fallacy is a flaw in the logic or reasoning of an argument. It occurs when there is an error in the reasoning process that leads to an invalid or unsound argument. Fallacies are not related to the motivational properties of an argument. 24. The statement, "But Dad, all the other kids are going," reflects the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. Answer: False Rationale: The statement "But Dad, all the other kids are going," reflects the fallacy of bandwagon, not appeal to ignorance. The appeal to ignorance fallacy occurs when someone argues that a claim is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. 25. Name-calling is the general label for attacks on people instead of on their arguments. Answer: True Rationale: Name-calling is a type of fallacy known as ad hominem, which involves attacking the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. It is a form of argumentative strategy that focuses on attacking the person's character or reputation rather than the content of their argument. 26. The idea that thunder and lighting cause rain is an example of a sequential fallacy. Answer: True Rationale: The statement reflects a sequential fallacy, where a causal relationship is assumed between two events without sufficient evidence. While thunder and lightning often precede rain, the statement does not provide enough evidence to establish a causal relationship. 27. Dave woke up with what he believes are mosquito bites on his arms. He concludes that there must be mosquitos in the house. His reasoning may reflect the sequential fallacy. Answer: True Rationale: Dave's reasoning reflects a sequential fallacy, as he is assuming a causal relationship between the mosquito bites and the presence of mosquitos in the house based on a single observation. This conclusion may not be valid, as there could be other explanations for the bites. 28. The use of Tiger Woods to help sell Buick automobiles may reflect the fallacy of an appeal to authority. Answer: True Rationale: The use of a celebrity like Tiger Woods to endorse a product is an example of an appeal to authority fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone uses an authority figure or celebrity to support their argument, even though the authority may not be an expert on the topic or their expertise is not relevant to the argument. 29. The primacy-recency strategy for developing argumentative speeches means that the speaker places the strongest arguments first or last. Answer: True Rationale: The primacy-recency strategy involves placing the strongest arguments at the beginning or end of a speech to make them more memorable to the audience. By placing these arguments first or last, the speaker increases the likelihood that they will be remembered and have a greater impact on the audience. 30. Argumentum ad hominem is the same as a genetic fallacy. Answer: False Rationale: Argumentum ad hominem and genetic fallacy are two different types of fallacies. Argumentum ad hominem involves attacking the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself, while genetic fallacy involves dismissing an argument based on its origins or source. 14.3 Short Answer 1. How can the truth or accuracy of the claim be measured? Answer: Truth or accuracy of the claim is measured by a standard. 2. What are the three types of claims? Answer: Policy, value, and fact. 3. Formulate a statement of fact, a statement of value, and a statement of policy about the subject of television. Answer: The fact claim will state that something about television is or is not the case, for example, "Children spend more time watching TV than sleeping." The value claim will state that something about television is desirable or undesirable, for example, "The amount of violence on TV is dangerous to the minds of our young." The policy claim will state that something should or should not be done concerning television, for example, "We must insist that the V-chip be installed in all TVs, new and old." 4. What type of claim is reflected in the statement, "While Rasheed Wallace is flamboyant and occasionally an embarrassment, the Pistons would be foolish to get rid of him." Answer: The statement is a claim of policy. 5. What does motivationally relevant evidence add to rationally relevant evidence and why is this important? Answer: Motivationally relevant evidence creates in your listeners a desire to become involved. An audience may agree with the speaker intellectually, but unless they feel strongly they probably will not act on those beliefs. They must see the issue as personally relevant to them. 6. Dominique believes that men who wear tattoos and leather jackets are dangerous, so when she is stalled on the highway and a man with tattoos and a leather jacket stops to help her, she rejects his help and says a tow truck is on the way. What kind of reasoning was involved here? Answer: This is an example of reasoning from generalization. 7. Mrs. Murphy can't understand why the discipline techniques that worked so well with her first child are so ineffective with her second child. What kind of reasoning was Mrs. Murphy using? Answer: She was reasoning from parallel case. 8. What are four questions that can be used to evaluate an argument? Answer: (1) What was the argument’s effect? (2) Was the argument valid? (3) Was the argument truthful? and (4) Was the argument ethical? 9. Give an example of a hasty generalization. How can you avoid using them in your speech? Answer: A hasty generalization is a claim made on the basis of too little evidence. They may range from common stereotypes to old adages. Some examples are "Redheads have hot tempers," "All African Americans like rap music," and "Blondes have more fun." To avoid using hasty generalizations in your speech, you must have sufficient evidence to support your claim. 10. What kind of fallacy is reflected in this statement, "Since we don't know the effects of transplanting animal tissues into humans, we should stop funding this potentially dangerous research"? Answer: This statement reflects an appeal to ignorance. 11. Explain an appeal to authority fallacy and give an example. Answer: An appeal to authority occurs when someone who is popular but not an expert persuades the audience to accept an idea or a product. An example would be Snoop Dogg playing golf with Lee Iacocca and he promotes the Chrysler 300 car. Although Snoop Dogg is not an authority on automobiles, he is used as a popular figure to promote the Chrysler product. 12. What is argumentum ad hominem? Answer: Argumentum ad hominem is another name for the name calling fallacy. It is used when attacks are made on people instead of on their arguments. 13. What are the advantages of placing your strongest argument first or last (the primacyrecency effect)? Answer: Ideas presented first set the agenda for what is to follow. If you use your strongest argument first, it is likely that your listeners will judge what follows to be strong also and this heightens the perceived credibility of the speaker. We also know that audiences tend to retain the most recent information given and this is why one of your strongest arguments could be placed last. 14. Why is it a good idea to avoid personal attacks on your opponent? Answer: Avoiding personal attacks enhances your credibility. Arguing well without becoming vicious will earn you the respect and, maybe, the agreement of your listeners. 15. When a speaker is responding to a counterargument, what is a four-step process that can be used to organize the response? Answer: (1) Restate the opponent's claim; (2) Explain your objection to it; (3) Offer evidence to support your position; and (4) Indicate the significance of your rebuttal. 14.4 Essay Questions 1. Analyze the claim below. Determine the type of claim, the form of reasoning involved, and what would be needed to prove the claim. "A fetus is a human being from the moment of conception." Answer: This statement reflects a claim of fact. Definition is essential to deciding this claim. What is a human being, what is a fetus, and how do the characteristics of the fetus reflect those of a human being? The form of reasoning would be deductive, or reasoning from generalization. To the extent that the speaker could get the audience to agree with his/her definitions, this could be a power form of argument. 2. An epidemiological survey of a region in Asia has determined that the incidence of stomach and colon cancer is extremely low. The consistent characteristic of the region is that the people drink an enormous amount of green tea. The conclusion is that there is some factor in green tea that will reduce the likelihood of contracting stomach or colon cancer. The speaker argues that the members of the audience should drink more green tea so they also can reduce the chances of this kind of cancer. Evaluate the reasoning involved in this argument. What type of claim is being made, what form of reasoning is involved, and how sound is the argument raised? Answer: An epidemiological survey is essentially reasoning from example. The investigators seek to find correlations between the habits and conditions of the population and the object of their study. The claim made by the speaker is one of policy since it asks the audience to do something based upon the evidence. The argument is limited because there is no causal relationship established and because a number of other factors could intervene to affect the consequences of drinking green tea. A good answer will apply the questions for evaluating reasoning from examples. 3. How is it that cigarette manufacturers can claim that there is no proof that cigarettes cause lung cancer? Answer: A causal argument requires that effects produced are directly and unequivocably produced by the cause. Since not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer and people who do not smoke can get lung cancer, the manufacturers can argue that other factors are involved in the development of lung cancer. They are also applying an extremely high standard of causation, higher than most people would apply. 4. If you were using reasoning from parallel case, what questions would you consider before presenting your speech? Answer: The questions that you might consider are: Are there more similarities than differences between the two cases? and Are the similarities you have pointed out the relevant and important ones? 5. List and explain the eight type of fallacies in reasoning. Answer: (1) A hasty generalization is a claim that is made on the basis of too little evidence. (2) A genetic fallacy occurs when someone assumes that the only "true" understanding of some idea, practice, or event is to be found in its origins. (3) An appeal to ignorance is an appeal to the audience based on a calculated premise that the audience does not know information on the topic. It is often argued with the use of double negatives. For example, "You can't prove that it won't work." (4) The bandwagon fallacy is used to appeal to popular opinion and assumes that because everyone else is doing something, so should the audience. (5) The sequential fallacy suggests that if one event follows another, the first event was must cause the second. (6) The begging the question is an appeal that rephrases an idea then offers it as its own reason. (7) An appeal to authority occurs when a popular person, although not an expert, tries to convince the audience to purchase or use a specific product or service. (8) Name-calling is used when a speaker attacks the person instead of attacking the person's argument. Test Bank for Principles of Public Speaking Kathleen M. German, Bruce E. Gronbeck, Douglas Ehninger, Alan H. Monroe 9780205857548, 9780205843893
