University Philosophy Assignment 2: Fallacy Detection and Analysis

This assignment is designed to test the student's understanding of logical fallacies. The assignment includes multiple-choice questions, requiring the identification of fallacies in provided arguments, such as the fallacy of vagueness, equivocation, circularity, pejorative comparison, false dichotomy, appeal to ignorance, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, composition, division, and ad hominem. The student is also tasked with constructing an example of the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy and defining a newly identified fallacy, 'Fallacy X', based on provided examples. The assignment assesses the ability to recognize and explain flaws in reasoning and distinguish between valid and invalid arguments. The student's answers demonstrate the ability to apply critical thinking to evaluate arguments and identify logical fallacies. The assignment also tests understanding of the relationship between fallacies and the truth of conclusions and premises.

Assignment Two
Due Date 10 January 2020
Weighting 33% of final result
Answer ALL the following questions. Some questions are multiple choice - in each case
exactly one of the several suggested answers is correct. Pick just one.
***
1

Question 1. (2 POINTS) Does the following argument involve a fallacy? If you
think it does not, tick (d). If you think it does, which of (a), (b) or (c) might
reasonably be construed as the fallacy in this argument?
The theory of evolution is unjustified, since the proposition that different species are
genealogically related is not rationally supported.
 fallacy of vagueness – because this theory gives a clear idea of all the species in
the universe and it is totally related to the genetic variation.
(b) equivocation
(c) circularity
(d) no fallacy
2

Question 2. (2 POINTS) Does the following argument involve a fallacy? If you
think it does not, pick (d) below. If you think it does, which of (a), (b) or (c) might
reasonably be construed as the fallacy in this argument?
Stop complaining about poverty and homelessness in Australia. If you want to see real
poverty, you should go to India!
 fallacy of vagueness - because the rate of poverty and inequality of Australia is
twenty-five percent more than India. In the category of poverty and inequality
Australia ranked first but India ranked fifth.
(b) pejorative comparison
(c) false dichotomy
(d) no fallacy
3

Question 3. (2 POINTS) Does the following argument involve a fallacy? If you
think it does not, pick (d) below. If you think it does, which of (a), (b) or (c) might
reasonably be construed as the fallacy in this argument?
There are several theories of cyclical time in the literature. Consider this one: ‘The
cyclical theory of time claims that each particular state of the universe will, after an
enormously long, though finite period of time, occur in exactly the same way in which it
has already occurred an infinite number of times in the past. […] In other words, cosmic
history may be regarded as an infinite series of identical cycles: what is happening now
has happened already an infinite number of times in the past and will happen again an
infinite number of times in the future.’1
Is there any reason to believe that this theory is false? Probably not. To begin with,
its truth is logically possible. Secondly, no evidence can be adduced against this theory:
because the cycles are enormously long we have no hope to survive till the next cycle so
that we might check whether it is identical to ours or not. These considerations lead one
to believe that the theory is true.
(a) denying the antecedent
(b) circularity
(c) appeal to ignorance
 (d)no fallacy – no evidence is can be provided against this theory because the
cycles are very large and this theory can be logically true.
1 Milic Capek, ‘The Theory of Eternal Recurrence in Modern Philosophy of Science, with Special
Reference to C. S. Peirce’, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 57, No. 9 (Apr. 28, 1960), pp. 289-296. The
quote is from p.289.
4

Question 4. (2 POINTS) Does the following argument involve a fallacy? If you
think it does not, pick (d) below. If you think it does, which of (a), (b) or (c) might
reasonably be construed as the fallacy in this argument?
Either philosophy is the most stimulating field to study or sociology is; sociology is far
from stimulating; hence philosophy must be the most stimulating field of all!
(a) affirming the consequent
 (b) equivocation – because both the sociology and philosophy give some
interesting ideas.
(c) false dichotomy
(d) no fallacy
5

Question 5. (2 POINTS)
Does the following argument involve a fallacy? If you think it does not, pick (d)
below. If you think it does, which of (a), (b) or (c) might reasonably be construed as
the fallacy in this argument?
If determinism is true, we don’t have free will; hence, determinism must be true, since we
certainly don’t have free will.
(a) undistributed middle
 (b) denying the antecedent – because true determination does not mean that there
is no free will.
(c) affirming the consequent
(d) no formal fallacy: deductively valid
6

Question 6. (2 POINTS)
Does the following argument involve a fallacy? If you think it does not, pick (d)
below. If you think it does, which of (a), (b) or (c) might reasonably be construed as
the fallacy in this argument?
If I submit my assignment one second late, the teacher will not penalise me for lateness.
If that’s true, then if I submit my assignment two seconds late, she will not penalise me
for lateness. One second can never make the difference between ‘late’ and ‘not late’; it
follows that no matter how many seconds late my assignment is, it will never be
penalised!
 fallacy of vagueness – because second is a negligible amount of time. If am not
able to submit my assignment after the deadline then teacher will give
punishment.
(b) equivocation
(c) denying the antecedent
(d) no fallacy
7

Question 7. (2 POINTS)
Does the following argument involve a fallacy? If you think it does not, pick (d)
below. If you think it does, which of (a), (b) or (c) might reasonably be construed as
the fallacy in this argument?
A person cannot be rational, since a person is composed entirely of molecules, and no
individual molecule is rational.
(a) undistributed middle
(b) division
(c) composition
 (d)no fallacy – If a person is constructed with the help of molecules and if none of
the molecule is logical then a person cannot be a logical human being.
8

Question 8. (2 POINTS)
Does the following argument involve a fallacy? If you think it does not, pick (d)
below. If you think it does, which of (a), (b) or (c) might reasonably be construed as
the fallacy in this argument?
David is not a baby, and thus, given that all babies are querulous, he must not be
querulous.
(a) undistributed middle
(b) denying the antecedent
 (c) affirming the consequent – because it is mentioned that David is not a infant
and all the infants are complaining. So it can be said that David is not
complaining.
(d) no fallacy; deductively valid
9

Question 9. (2 POINTS)
Does the following argument involve a fallacy? If you think it does not, pick (d)
below. If you think it does, which of (a), (b) or (c) might reasonably be construed as
the fallacy in this argument?
Every philosophy book ever written has been read by someone. It follows that there is a
person who has read every philosophy book ever written!
 fallacy of vagueness – It is mentioned in above argument that all philosophy
books have been read by some persons. For that reason it is hardly possible to
read all philosophy books by every person.
(b) circularity
(c) ambiguity of scope
(d) no fallacy
10

Question 10. (2 POINTS)
Does the following argument involve a fallacy? If you think it does not, pick (d)
below. If you think it does, which of (a), (b) or (c) might reasonably be construed as
the fallacy in this argument?
Josh claims that none of the evidence for the existence of alien life is convincing. We
should disregard what he says, since he is a hippy and was once arrested as a student
activist.
(a) argument from ignorance
 (b) equivocation – the author says that one should not believe in Josh’s word
because he is addicted to alcohol. Josh was arrested once when he was a student
activist.
(c) ad hominem (attacking the person)
(d) no fallacy
11

Question 11. (2 POINTS)
Construct your own example of an argument that can be reasonably interpreted as
involving the ‘argument from ignorance’ fallacy.
‘Your own’ means that the example should not be borrowed from the teaching
materials for this Unit, or from any other source – including Internet sources.
Ans. One day me and my friends played cricket in my college playground. At that time, I
noticed that one of friend performed some misconduct in the playground. I asked him that
why he did so. Then he said that he was not guilty. After that I reported this one to the
umpire. He also agreed with me. The umpire said to him he was not in the position to
prove his harmlessness. For that reason, he was treated as guilty.
12