Review of Questions:
Vegetables are natural, therefore they are good for you.
This is a logical fallacy that is known as the Appeal to Nature. Many things are natural, like vegetables, animals and cancer. It doesn’t mean that they are good for you just because they are natural. While vegetables may be good for you, saying that they are good for you because they are natural, is flawed logic.
Some people think that careers are most important, others think that family is. There is a compromise between them that must be correct. Is this logic flawed?
This is a logical fallacy that is known as the Argument to Moderation. It asserts that given any 2 positions there exists a compromise that must be correct. While there very well could be a compromise between career and family that is most desirable, this conclusion lacks any evidence because it sees intrinsic value in compromise. Just because there is a compromise, it’s doesn’t mean that it’s good or valid. If you have 2 positions, one stating that they’re for drowning 100 kittens and the other for drowning 0 kittens, a compromise between them that advocates for the drowning of 50 kittens isn’t acceptable.
Broccoli has significantly less fat than the leading candy bar. Is this logic flawed?
This is logical fallacy known as Faulty Comparison. It may look like a simple statement of a fact, but while both broccoli and candy bars can be considered snacks, comparing the two in terms of fat content and ignoring the significant difference in taste, leads to the false comparison. When you compare 2 unrelated things to make one thing look more or less desirable than it really is, you’re making a faulty comparison.
In Detroit, there is a 10-year-old living on the street selling drugs to stay alive. In Los Angeles, a 19-year-old prostitute works the streets. America’s youth is certainly in serious trouble. Is this flawed logic?
This is logical fallacy known as Misleading Vividness. It occurs when a small number of vivid and dramatic examples is taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. 2 examples are not enough to draw a conclusion about the whole youth of America.
Porn shouldn't be restricted only to people who are older than 21. Young people will still find a way to watch it.
This is a logical fallacy that is known as the Nirvana Fallacy. It rejects a solution on the grounds that it’s not perfect, even if it’s an improvement of sorts. While restricting porn only to those who are older than 21 may be wrong (in my humble opinion), the argument cannot be dismissed simply because it doesn’t solve the problem a 100%.
If you are open to it, love will find you.
This is logical fallacy that is known as Reification. It occurs when an abstraction is treated like a physical entity. Love is an abstraction, not a little fat flying baby with a bow and arrow that searches for victims. This saying would be bad advice for someone who would otherwise make an effort to find a romantic partner, but chose not to.
It's time to grab my future by the balls.
This is another example of Reification. The future is an abstraction. It does not have testicles. If it did, you probably wouldn't want to grab them because your future might sue you for sexual misconduct.
It seems like we are constantly hearing about crimes committed on our streets. That is concerning. Is this flawed logic?
No it’s not. It would be if the argument drew some conclusion, but saying that something concerns you, is perfectly logical even if you’re concerned by a small inaccurate sample.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Is this flawed logic?
This is a logical fallacy known as Style Over Substance. Most applications of language, like the example above, are not taken literally, but figuratively. However, even figurative language is a way to make an argument. In this case, it might be used to imply that a team is no better than the least productive member of that team which is just not true. Very often the “weakest links” fade away into the background and the strong players lead the team.
The reason billions of children starve to death each year is because we live in a world that does not care. Is this flawed logic?
This is a logical fallacy known as Subverted Support. It tries to explain a phenomenon that does not actually occur or there’s no evidence to suggest it does. Billions of children don’t starve to death each year - not even close. If it were close, it might be better categorized as an exaggeration.
Be happy with the car you drive. There are many people in this country who don’t even have one. Is this flawed logic?
This is a logical fallacy that is known as Relative Privation. It tries to make a scenario appear better or worse by comparing it to the best or worst scenario. If the person drives a very shitty car, only comparing him to the person who doesn’t own a car can make his car seem precious.
Chillzbobz got the most points which was 8 out of 11.
s010 and
sdslave both scored 5/11 and will be exposed shortly.
Please feel free to express your criticism of the quiz and/or it's conditions. I half-assed it at the start and many people missed out on the ability to take the test, so I am thinking about improving the quiz and making a second one. Tell me how you feel about it.