Answers Here

22. Hasty generalization. The phrase, "if you've seen one, you've seen them all," is typical of generalizations made on the basis of too little evidence--in this case, as little as one observation or experience. If taken by itself, the first claim, "Those James Bond movies are so predictable," might be considered a sweeping generalization, but it might also be an accurate appraisal of a group of similar films. The group being discussed is not so large as to preclude the possibility of a meaningful generalization, as would be the case if the claim were "Those action films are so predictable."

23. Ad hominem. The suggestion is that we dismiss the arguments of a bullet manufacturer on the grounds that he is biased. But our acceptance or rejection must be based on the argument, not the person making it. And even if we determine that self-interest has motivated the argument, we might also find the argument persuasive apart from those intentions, and accept it. This might also be considered a sweeping generalization, with the unstated claim that "All bullet manufacturers are opposed to banning handguns for reasons of profit that can be supported with no valid arguments," though such a claim would be circular, as well, since it assumes the thing (that the argument is invalid) which it purports to be proving.

24. Sweeping Generalization. Gingrich's interest in cutting entitlements is self-evident in this claim, but the charge that he wants old people to starve goes well beyond that. This might also be seen as a false dilemma, where the two options are "leaving the budgets of Medicare and Social Security alone" and "wanting old people to starve." There are, of course, many other possibilities than these. Notice, though, that this is not a loaded question. Just because a question is asked does not mean it is phrased in that form.

25. Appeal to fear. The question of endangering society is an important one in deciding who should be paroled, but this assertion works not by presenting arguments or statistics relating to the dangers posed by paroled rapists, but by promoting the fear that someone close to us will be victimized. That is, we are expected to respond emotionally, not rationally--a good example of an appeal to emotions. We needn't exclude our emotions from our decisions entirely, but we cannot allow them to overrule all other considerations.

26. Fallacious substitution of the whole for a part. Harvard may well be an "intellectually superior institution," but this does not mean that each of its students necessarily enjoys a "superior intellect." If that were true, for example, students at small colleges would all be small. We cannot transfer the characterization of an institution to the individuals who attend or compose that institution.

27. Appeal to indirect consequences: With each step down this slippery slope, from depending on the notes to never showing up for class and failing the course, is possible but far from automatic. Yet the conclusion, that you shouldn't borrow the notes, is based mostly on the most indirect, and therefore least likely, of these possibilities. In making decisions, we can take consequences into account, but only in proportion to their likelihood. Appeals to indirect consequences usually try to get you to take disastrous consequences into account, without regard for their likelihood.

28. Appeal to common belief. The unstated premise here is "you shouldn't eat anything that does that to your heart." And perhaps you shouldn't. But what evidence is offered in support? A vague generalization that "everyone knows." Yet the effects of eating red meat on the heart are not something determined by popular opinion, and they would remain the same, regardless of what that opinion was.

29. False dilemma. The claim only has two options: either you buy the security system, or you don't love your family. But, of course, there are many others: you might not love your family and still buy the system; or you might love your family but not buy the system; or you might buy some other system. This fallacy works by making you concentrate only on the two options mentioned, one of which--in this case, not loving your family--is assumed to be unacceptable. Did you identify this one as "appeal to fear"? Not all negative possibilities elicit fear. It is possible for such a claim to elicit a fearful response, but the emphasis seems to be on whether you love your family, not on whether you fear for their safety.

30. Is this an appeal to fear? Let's begin with the bad news for Stephen: even if he does stop smoking, he's going to die one day. And the claim doesn't say when he will die, or why. Still, some people might consider the very mention of death as a scare tactic, even though there is plenty of evidence that smoking does impair your health and shorten your life expectancy. But even a justified claim can be expressed fallaciously as an appeal to fear, if it resorts to scare tactics instead of persuasion. Overall, though, this example works better as a false dilemma, because Stephen is being told that there are only two choices for him: to give up smoking, or die. And, as we said at the beginning, these both can be true, so there need not be any choice made between them.

31. Fallacy of Post Hoc Reasoning. Like most superstitions, this example uses the form of "after x, therefore because of x." In this case, something bad (failed exam) happened after walking under a ladder, so walking under the ladder is thought to be the cause of the failed exam. It might take a few days or a few years, but eventually, of course, something bad is going to happen after you walk under a ladder, break a mirror, or walk by a black cat, so superstitions seem to work for some people. But it's just a case of post hoc reasoning.

32. False dilemma. This advertising slogan presents you with only two options (either it is Tide or it isn't clean), when there are many other possibilities, such as getting clothes clean with another detergent, or using Tide and still not getting the clothes clean. This might also be considered a sweeping generalization because, while there may be evidence enough to support a claim like "Tide gets clothes clean," there is insufficient evidence to support a claim like "Tide is the only detergent that can get clothes clean."

33. This is a case of "everyone is doing it," or appeal to common practice. Just because everyone else was speeding doesn't make speeding legal. And if we understand that the speaker is saying, "Everyone was breaking the law, so I can break it, too," this becomes an example of the special case of two wrongs make a right. But perhaps the driver is saying, "I had no choice, officer. If I didn't drive fast, I would have been in danger, because everyone else was driving so fast." If so, this might not be a fallacy at all. How did you understand it?

34. Loaded question. If you answer "yes" or "no" to this question, you affirm or deny your understanding, but, because the question has two clauses, you still agree that you do need to be punished.

35. The problem here is that there may be many reasons and many results for cutting food stamp funding besides hurting the poor. So this might be seen as any of the following fallacies: False dilemma. Underlying the claim is the assumption that either Clinton maintains funding for food stamps, or he is out to hurt the poor. But there are other possibilities: he may be cutting the funds because there are less revenues, or he may be cutting the funds in one program for the poor, but increasing the funding in another. Hasty or sweeping generalization. In this case, it may be hard to decided whether the problem is insufficient evidence (Clinton's action on a single program's funding) or too broad a conclusion ("out to hurt the poor"). In either case, though, this seems a fallacious generalization.

36. Sweeping generalization. The implication here is that all lawyers are concerned about just one thing, money. Even if there were evidence that this was a primary concern of most lawyers, to suggest that money is the only concern of all lawyers creates too sweeping of a generalization.

37. Post hoc reasoning. The passage came after Clinton took office, so the passage was caused by Clinton--that is classic "after this, therefore because of this" reasoning. In order to support such a claim, we need to know more than just that he was already in office. We need to know how he caused the proposition to pass, or at least what he might have done to prevent it.

38. If you thought the person was saying that, as long as his girlfriend is watching, he always wins (past, present, and future), then this is the fallacy of post hoc reasoning, because there is no reason why someone watching would cause him to win. However, if you thought he was saying, "I've always won in the past when she watched, and so I will continue to do so in the future," this would be a sweeping generalization. Finally, if you thought he only meant, "In the past, I've always won whenever my girlfriend was watching," then this wouldn't be a fallacy at all, but merely a verifiable claim.

39. The "either-or" construction here gives this away as a false dilemma, also called an either-or fallacy. You are given two options ("emergency" or "not a real friend"), when there could be many other possibilities to explain why Bo didn't help.

40. Loaded question. If you answer "yes" or "no" to this question, you affirm or deny whether you have cleaned up your room, but, because the question has two clauses, you still agree that you were "supposed to" clean it up, and that may not be the case.