 |
|
1
| |
What is an example of simplification? |
| | A) | Either the cat is under the sink or that's a possum. It's not a possum, so the cat is under the sink. |
| | B) | The cat is under the sink. That's not a possum. So, the cat is under the sink and that's not a possum. |
| | C) | The cat is under the sink and it is not a possum. Therefore, the cat is under the sink. |
| | D) | If the cat is under the sink, then it's not a possum. The cat is under the sink, so it's not a possum. |
| | E) | If the cat is under the sink, then it's not a possum. Therefore, if the cat is under the sink then the cat is under the sink and it's not a possum. |
|
|
|
2
| |
What takes the form: "If A then B. Not B, therefore, not A." |
| | A) | Modus Tollens |
| | B) | Modus Ponens |
| | C) | Disjunctive Syllogism. |
| | D) | Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. |
| | E) | Fallacy of Denial. |
|
|
|
3
| |
Complete the argument using Modus Ponens: "If the sun comes out then, there'll be a rainbow." |
| | A) | There was not a rainbow, so the sun did not come out. |
| | B) | Therefore, there was a rainbow. |
| | C) | If the sun comes out then the sun came out and there's a rainbow. |
| | D) | The sun came out, so, there's a rainbow. |
| | E) | There's a rainbow, so, the sun came out. |
|
|
|
4
| |
What are the names of the formal fallacies? Circle all that are formal fallacies: |
| | A) | Fallacy of Denial. |
| | B) | Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. |
| | C) | Fallacy of Affirming the Antecedent. |
| | D) | Fallacy of Denying the Consequent. |
| | E) | Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. |
|
|
|
5
| |
Name the argument form of this: "If the food sits out any longer at the picnic, the children will get food poisoning. If the children get food poisoning, they'll need to see a doctor. So, if the food sits out any longer at the picnic, they'll need to see a doctor. |
| | A) | Modus Ponens. |
| | B) | Modus Tollens. |
| | C) | Hypothetical Syllogism. |
| | D) | Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. |
| | E) | Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. |
| | F) | Absorption. |
| | G) | Conjunction. |
|
|
|
6
| |
What are not Rules of Inference? Circle all that are not Rules of Inference. |
| | A) | Transposition |
| | B) | Absorption |
| | C) | Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent |
| | D) | DeMorgan's laws |
| | E) | Modus Ponens |
| | F) | Disjunctive Syllogism |
| | G) | Conjunction |
| | H) | Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. |
|
|
|
7
| |
What is an example of Disjunctive Syllogism: |
| | A) | If that's a Jersey, then it's a cow. If it's a cow, then it chews grass. So, if it's a Jersey, then it chews grass. |
| | B) | That's a cow. It's a Jersey. Therefore, that's a cow and it's a Jersey. |
| | C) | Either that's a Jersey or it's a Holstein. That's a Jersey, so it is not a Holstein. |
| | D) | Either that a Jersey or it's a Holstein. That's not a Jersey, so it's a Holstein. |
| | E) | If it's a Jersey, then it is not a Holstein. That's a Holstein, so it is not a Jersey. |
|
|
|
8
| |
What is the rest of the argument using Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent: "If it's a werewolf, then it's not Alicia's dog Big." |
| | A) | It is a werewolf. So, it is not Alicia's dog Big. |
| | B) | It is not a werewolf, so it is Alicia's dog Big. |
| | C) | It's not Alicia's dog Big. So it is a werewolf. |
| | D) | It is Alicia's dog Big. So it is not a werewolf. |
| | E) | It's a werewolf and not Alicia's dog Big. |
| | F) | It's Alicia's dog Big and it's not a werewolf. |
|
|
|
9
| |
What is the form of the conclusion in a Constructive Dilemma? |
| | A) | Therefore, A and C. |
| | B) | Therefore, B and D. |
| | C) | Therefore, either A or C. |
| | D) | Therefore, either B or D. |
| | E) | Therefore, either not A or not C. |
| | F) | Therefore, either not B or not D. |
|
|
|
10
| |
What's the difference between Modus Ponens and the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent? Citcle two: |
| | A) | With Modus Ponens, the second line affirms the consequent is true. |
| | B) | With Modus Ponens, the second line affirms the antecedent is true. |
| | C) | With the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent the second line affirms the consequent is true. |
| | D) | With the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, the second line affirms the antecedent is true. |
| | E) | With Modus Ponens, the second line denies the antecedent. |
| | F) | With Modus Ponens, the second line denies the consequent. |
| | G) | With the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, the second line denies the antecedent. |
| | H) | With the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, the second line denies the consequent. |
|
|
|
11
| |
What is the name of the form of this argument: The baby stuck his hand in the hummus. He got gooey fingers. Therefore, the baby stuck his hand in the hummus and got gooey fingers. |
| | A) | Addition. |
| | B) | Absorption. |
| | C) | Simplification. |
| | D) | Constructive Dilemma. |
| | E) | Conjunction. |
|
|
|
12
| |
What form is this argument: The baby has gooey fingers. Therefore, either the baby has gooey fingers or there's a hippopotamus in the dining room." |
| | A) | Disjunction. |
| | B) | Conjunction. |
| | C) | Disjunctive syllogism. |
| | D) | Logical addition. |
| | E) | False Dichotomy. |
|