Question types

Start with

Question limit

of 31 available terms

Print test

31 Matching questions

  1. Denying Inconsistensies Fallacy
  2. Begging the Question Fallacy
  3. Appeal to Experience Fallacy
  4. Fallacy
  5. Activated Ignorance Source
  6. Slippery Slope Fallacy
  7. Two Wrongs Make a Right Fallacy
  8. Faulty Analogy Fallacy
  9. Appeal to Popularity or Popular Passions Fallacy
  10. Thrown-In Statistics Fallacy
  11. Hard-Cruel-World Argument Fallacy
  12. Hasty Generalization Fallacy
  13. Search for Perfect Solution Fallacy
  14. Appeal to Authority Fallacy
  15. Ad Hominem Fallacy
  16. Appeal to Fear Fallacy
  17. Treating Abstracts as Reality Fallacy
  18. Bias
  19. Uncritical Persons
  20. Fair-Minded Critical Persons
  21. Activated Knowledge Source
  22. Inert Information Source
  23. Attacking Evidence Fallacy
  24. Three Types of Thinker
  25. Reasoned Conclusion
  26. Either-Or Fallacy
  27. Opinion
  28. Red Herring Fallacy
  29. Skilled Manipulators
  30. Evading Questions Fallacy
  31. Straw Man Fallacy
  1. a A partiality or prejudice that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation.
  2. b Drawing an invalid comparison between things for the purpose of either supporting or refuting some position. Suggesting that because two things are alike in some respects, they must be alike in other respects.
  3. c Avoiding direct and truthful answers to difficult questions through diversionary tactics, vagueness, or deliberately confusing or complex responses.
  4. d Taking into the mind, and actively using, information that is false, although we mistakenly think it is true. We mislearn or partially learn information or accept illogical beliefs and then act on them.
  5. e Strong-sense critical thinkers that reject manipulation and controlling others, combine critical-thinking skills with a desire to server public good, want all points of view expressed, and want manipulative persuasion exposed.
  6. f Refusing to admit contradictions or inconsistencies when making an argument or defending a position.
  7. g Uncritical persons, skilled manipulators, and fair-minded critical persons.
  8. h Justifying illegal or unethical practices by arguing that they are necessary to confront a greater evil or threat.
  9. i Defending or justifying a wrong position or conduct by pointing to a similar wrong done elsewhere.
  10. j Inferring a general proposition about something based on too small a sample or unrepresentative sample.
  11. k A claim that is accepted because we think it is justified by the supporting statements for it. It is inferred from the reasons.
  12. l To justify support for a position by citing an esteemed or well-known figure who supports it. An appeal to authority does not address the merit of the position.
  13. m This approach focuses on discrediting the underlying evidence for an argument and thereby questioning its validity.
  14. n Distorting or exaggerating an opponent's argument so that it might be more easily attacked.
  15. o Asserting a conclusion that is assumed in the reasoning. The reason given to support the conclusion restates the conclusion.
  16. p Claiming to speak with the "voice of experience" in support of an argument (even when that experience may not be relevant).
  17. q Intellectually unskilled thinkers with socially conditioned beliefs, beliefs grounded in prejudice, that are motivated by irrationality, vanity, and intellectual arrogance, are prone to emotional counter-attacks when thinking is questioned, and tend to see themselves as "good" and opponents as "evil".
  18. r To suggest that a step or action, once taken, will lead inevitably to similar steps or actions with presumably undesirable consequences.
  19. s Taking into the mind and actively using information that is true and, when understood insightfully, leads us by implication to more and more knowledge. We bring significant ideas and knowledge into the mind and are able to apply them, systematically, to new situations.
  20. t Taking into the mind information that, though memorized, we do not understand. We think we understand this information, but we don't or can't use it.
  21. u Introducing an irrelevant point or topic to divert attention from the issue at hand. It is a tactic for confusing the point under debate.
  22. v Citing a threat or possibility of a frightening outcome as the reason for supporting an argument. This threat can be physical or emotional: the idea is to invoke fear. This is sometimes called "scare tactics."
  23. w Dismissing an argument by attacking the person who offers it rather than by refuting its reasoning.
  24. x Citing abstract concepts (freedom, justice, science) to support an argument or to call for action.
  25. y Weak-sense critical thinkers that are skilled in manipulation, pursue self-interest, employ manipulation, domination, and demagoguery, and try to keep other points of view from being heard.
  26. z Assuming only two alternatives when, in reality, there are more than two. It implies that one of two outcomes is inevitable -- either x or y.
  27. aa A claim that is made without any supporting statements in a conclusion. An unsupported claim.
  28. ab Asserting that a solution is not worth adopting because it does not fix the problem completely.
  29. ac An error in reasoning that is present in an argument when the premises (or reasons) given for the conclusion don't properly support the conclusion.
  30. ad Citing majority sentiment or popular opinion as the reason for supporting a claim. It assumes that any position favored by the larger crowd must be true or worthy.
  31. ae The use of irrelevant, misleading, or questionable statistics to support an argument or defend a position.