Incorrect! In Philosophy, an argument is not a disagreement or yelling match. An argument is a claim (called a conclusion) supported by other claims (called premises). The conclusion is what you are trying to prove and the premises are the evidence.

Incorrect! The conclusion is the proposition you are trying to prove and the premise(s) are the evidence.  By the way, philosophers consider this the most challenging argument against God’s existence (i.e. the argument from evil). Random Quote: “Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy.” Beethoven

Incorrect! “Therefore” is the hint that the conclusion is coming.  By the way, mystics often use this type of argument (see chapter 1).

Incorrect! Geez! I am very disappointed in you. By definition, an argument has exactly one conclusion and at least one premise. Nietzsche told Yoda…. “There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy.”

Incorrect! An argument can have faulty facts (i.e. premises that are false, dubious, or unclear), or faulty reasoning (i.e. inference) from those premises. Notice an inference is not a statement like a premise or conclusion, it is the “invisible” process of reasoning from premises to the conclusion.  Review Chapter 2, it is the foundation of logic.

Incorrect! This inference is good/valid. Remember, the validity of an inference has nothing to do with whether the premises are true. To test the inference, assume the premises are true even if you know they aren’t. Now ask, “Do the assumed premises provide good reasons for believing the conclusion?”
If not, the inference is poor.
If yes, the inference is good.
Of course, I would still reject this argument because the premises are false. The argument is unsound, but valid.

Incorrect! Have you read chapter 2?  It is not enough to have all the facts, you must have good reasoning/inference from those facts.

Incorrect! There are only two ways to disagree with an argument: disagree with the premises or the reasoning/inference from the premises. You might suspect the argument has one of these two problems if you disagree with the conclusion, but simply saying the conclusion is false doesn’t tell us anything about the argument. One reason logicians are so angry is because some people reject arguments simply because they disagree with the conclusion. This issue goes much deeper.

Incorrect! This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent (If A then B, B, therefore A). Arguments that take this form always have an invalid inference.If you study formal logic, you will learn to see such patterns. These patterns will help you immediately determine the validity of an argument whereas those who do not study formal logic will take more time thinking through the content… and make more mistakes in the process.

Socrates told Yoda, “Wisdom is knowing that you don’t know”…. see the Socratic Method Chapter to learn more about Socratic Wisdom.

Incorrect. Perhaps this is one of many good reasons to read philosophy books… we all claim to value logic/reason at least some of the time. Of course, Pascal once said, “Reason’s last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things beyond it. It is merely feeble if it does not go as far as to realize that.”

Incorrect. Please review the false dilemma fallacy on the fallacy page or this video . Yoda says, “do, don’t try.”

Incorrect. Review the video or fallacies chapter. This is the argument from ignorance fallacy because you cannot usually move from a lack of evidence to a claim about reality. Don’t disappoint Yoda… he is short and cute.

Incorrect. Composition is the correct answer. It is not a hasty generalization because we are not generalizing from individuals to individuals, but moving from the parts to the whole. We need more evidence for the universe having a cause… perhaps the principle of sufficient reason will work?

Incorrect. This is begging the question because the conclusion is a mere rewording of the premise. The fact that an argument has a false premise does not make it fallacious (according to the technical definition of fallacies as mistaken inferences). Evil arguments await.

Incorrect. This is the appeal to nature fallacy. Moral reasoning is much more complex than an emotional utterance even if you believe it is founded on them. Read Chapter 3 of the Logic Course.

Incorrect. This is an appeal to popularity. Even if it is true that the earth moves around the sun, this argument for that position is fallacious because truth is what is the case not what people believe or want to be the case. You are becoming powerful, but the dark side I sense in you?

Incorrect. It is addressing the person instead of the premises, conclusion, and inference. This type of ad hominem (latin for “to the man”) is called poisoning the well. If you end your training now-if you choose the quick and easy path as Vader did- you will become an agent of evil.

Incorrect. Use the force, man, use the force! Remember, not every slide is fallacious. If you have good reasons for why A will lead to B and so on, then it is not a fallacy.  If you chose post hoc, remember post hoc is about A causing B because A happened before B, but slippery slope is about how we should not do A because A will lead to B and C.

Incorrect. We cannot usually move from our ignorance (i.e. not knowing) to claims about reality. If you want to try proving god’s existence, try using evidence (e.g. religious experience, cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, etc. ). Review Chaper 3 in the Logic Course above.

Incorrect. You cannot usually move from ignorance (i.e. lack of evidence about god’s existence) to a claim about reality… unless there is good reason to expect evidence. But there is no other evidence in this argument, there is only one premise. See the discussion of the argument from ignorance fallacy in Chapter 3. Also, misplacing the burden of proof is not the same as the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Incorrect. It is not always fallacious to move from the quality of the parts to the quality of the whole, which is why you must look at the context… and why the composition fallacy is an informal fallacy instead of a formal fallacy. Chapter 3 is about informal fallacies and Chapter 12 is about formal fallacies.

Incorrect. This is cherry picking. Cherry picking is when we look only for confirming evidence for our ideas. We ignore, suppress, do not see, or do not test for disconfirming evidence for our ideas. Could this argument also be a hasty generalization?

Incorrect. Post hoc is the correct answer. Post hoc is when we infer A caused B simply because A happened before B.  Notice all the answer choices are “if then” fallacies, but only one is correct. Yoda says, “I’ll be back!”

Incorrect! The correct answer is straw man. Notice a straw man is different from a red herring because a straw man addresses a weaker form of the original argument while a red herring changes the subject. 

Incorrect. This is an appeal to dubious authority; Einstein was an expert in physics, not politics.

Incorrect. Notice the word light has different meanings in the argument (e.g. not heavy or not dark colored).  Equivocation is probably the most common fallacy of ambiguity. “The fear of loss is a path to the dark side.” 

Incorrect. This is a hasty generalization, generalizing from a nonrepresentative sample. Also, because I am only mentioning the positive data, it could be cherry picking. But cherry picking was not an option… so choose the best answer and stop causing problems. 🙂 “Do or do not, there is not try.” saith Yoda.

Incorrect. It is a genetic fallacy. And notice ad hominem is a type of genetic fallacy since focusing on the origin often means focusing on the individual. Yoda says, “Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmmm.”

Incorrect. This is the formal fallacy called affirming the consequent (If A then B, B, therefore A). This was tricky and unfair because formal fallacies are covered in chapter 12. Sorry. This form of argument is always and absolutely fallacious, as long as A and B represent different things. One of the benefits of studying formal logic is you can know this is a bad argument in a matter of a second or two, see my formal fallacy video or chapter for more.

Incorrect. This is the formal fallacy called denying the antecedent (If A then B, not A, therefore not B). Ooops, I did it again. See Chapter 12 for more. This form of argument is always and absolutely fallacious, as long as A and B represent different things. One of the benefits of studying formal logic is you can know this is a bad argument in a matter of a second or two, see my formal fallacy video or chapter for more. 

Incorrect. Not quite a Jedi.This is a very difficult one. It is a valid argument form called modus ponens. If A then B. A. Therefore, B.  It is ALWAYS valid and is, therefore, not a formal fallacy. Remember, validity has nothing to do with whether the premises are actually true. One of the benefits of studying formal logic is you can know this is a good argument in a matter of a second or two, see my formal fallacy video or chapter for more. “The dark side cloudeth everything. Impossible to see the future is,” sayeth Yoda.

Incorrect. This seems to be an appeal to emotion. Emotions do not usually make a claim true or false. Can you think of any cases where they do? What if I argue, “I feel sad, so I am sad?” Yoda, “Named must your fear before banish it you can.”

Incorrect. The best answer is the slippery slope fallacy since you need good reasons for why euthanasia will lead to that. If you have them in the argument, then it may not be a slippery slope. It’s debateable. “Your weapons, you will not need them.”

Incorrect! Vader laughs and laughs. It is the composition fallacy because we cannot infer the whole paper is good simply because it has good paragraphs/parts. After all, the paper may lack unity. Do you understand why this is not a hasty generalization? Yoda asks, “When 900 years old you reach, look as good, you will not, hmmm?”

Incorrect. Vader just destroyed your planet. It’s time to save the other planets.  I am so sorry. May the force be with you in Fallacy Quiz 2.

Incorrect! This is the appeal to tradition fallacy. You might also say it is genetic, which is fine…. though the genetic fallacy usually involves dismissing a claim because of its origin.
SW: “Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time.”

Incorrect. Correct.This is the appeal to nature fallacy… a form of the naturalistic and genetic fallacy. There are other problems as well, but the conclusion does not follow even if we assume it is unnatural because you cannot infer goodness from mere unnaturalness. The reason you cannot make such an inference is because YOU believe some unnatural things are good. You probably believe many natural things are bad (e.g. violence, being too self centered, poisonous berries) and many unnatural things are good (e.g. resisting violence, going against selfish and unhealthy cravings) and vice versa…. so it would be inconsistent to argue that something is bad simply because it is unnatural.

Incorrect. You probably do not believe all natural things are good, so you cannot infer it is good simply because it is natural.

No, boo hoo. This is the appeal to tradition fallacy. SW “They say the universe is expanding, this should help with the traffic.”

No no, bad bad. This is the appeal to tradition fallacy.

No! Boo hoo. The best answer listed is appeal to tradition or appeal to dubious authority. I believe slavery is immoral, but it worries me when people use poor arguments on this important issue. See my video on slavery for more.

No. This is a false dilemma. Aren’t there other options like Linux or Paul’s special computer?
SW: “I installed a skylight in the ceiling. The people above me are furious.”

Incorrect.

This is a hasty generalization fallacy. It may be the case that most cyclists cheat, but the fact that Lance Armstrong alone cheated is not good evidence for that claim. Notice stereotypes are not hasty generalizations, but hasty generalizations often lead to stereotypes. Even if a stereotype is false, it is not fallacious because the stereotype itself is not an argument.
SW: “Whenever I think of the past, it brings back so many memories.”

Incorrect… this one is tricky because it is a formal fallacy from chapter 12 of the logic course. This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent because it takes the form of “If A then B. B. Therefore, A.” It is a formal fallacy. Notice it is not a slippery slope because it is not arguing you should not smoke, rather it is arguing you must have smoked. Nor is it a post hoc since it is not arguing “you smoked and then got cancer, so smoking causes cancer”, rather it is arguing you must have smoked because smoking causes cancer.

Incorrect! This is not a fallacy. If you assume the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows.

Incorrect. This is a false dilemma since it gives two options (care about people or animals, but not both) when there are really more options. Why can’t one care about both? It may also be an appeal to emotion and/or red herring. Can you explain why?

This is not a fallacy.

This is not a fallacy. If you chose composition because it moved from part to whole, then you are on the right track. However, it is not the composition fallacy because sometimes it is legitimate to infer the quality of the whole from the quality of the parts, as in this case. Informal fallacies, like the composition fallacy, have a logical form that is sometimes fallacious and sometimes not. Formal fallacies, on the other hand, have a logical form that is ALWAYS invalid/fallacious.

SW: “I went to a restaurant that served breakfast any time, so I ordered French Toast during the Renaissance.”

Incorrect. This is a false dilemma.

Incorrect. This is the straw man fallacy. The senator is not proposing unregulated capitalism, but simply a reduction of taxes.
SW: “I had to stop driving my car for a while, the tires got dizzy.”

This seems to be an appeal to pity/emotion.

SW: “If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends.”

Incorrect. This is the post hoc fallacy because I am arguing one event must have caused the other simply because it preceded it.

This might be the relativism fallacy, it depends on what they are talking about. Truth is what is the case, not what we believe or want to be the case.

Relativism is an interesting topic to explore. It is also difficult, mainly because relative is an ambiguous word and there are many forms of relativism in different fields.

Incorrect. This is a common reply to Hume’s problem of induction, and it is also begging the question/circular reasoning.
SW: “What a nice night for an evening.”

Incorrect. This is the equivocation fallacy because the arguer is confusing the philosophical meaning of “free will” with the political meaning of “free.”

This is the equivocation fallacy because “relative” has different meanings in ethics and physics.
SW: “If you saw a heat wave, would you wave back.”

Incorrect. This is the division fallacy because the arguer is illegitimately moving from the whole to the parts.
SW: Sometimes I wish my first word was quote, so that on my death bed, my last words would be “end quote.”

Incorrect. Correct. This is the ad populum or relativist fallacy. The fact that everyone believes x does not make x true… or false. Also, the fact that people disagree does not mean everyone has true beliefs. SW: “If at first you don’t succeed, then skydiving definitely is not for you.”

Incorrect. This is probably the straw man fallacy because there are stronger forms of religious belief.
SW: “I put instant coffee in the microwave and almost went back in time.”

This too is probably the straw man argument because there are stronger forms of atheism. Notice you can question the premise too, but that is irrelevant to whether it is a fallacy. Fallacies are bad arguments that arise even when we assume the premises are true. SW: “I am addicted to placebos.”

Incorrect. This is the cherry picking fallacy because I am only focusing on the evidence that confirms my ideas. I’m not looking at a representative sample. It could also be a hasty generalization if I am inferring the conclusion from those few smokers.

Incorrect. Correct. No, just kidding, incorrect. This is the playing god or appeal to nature fallacy. There is no special moral status to the way things are. If you believe there is, is that consistent with your other beliefs? See appeal to nature and playing god fallacies for more. SW: “When I die, I am leaving my body to science fiction.”

Incorrect. Correct. This is begging the question because it is assuming what it is trying to prove. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you… unless you enjoy receiving pain… then, please don’t.

Incorrect. This is the genetic fallacy. You cannot infer that a belief is false simply by investigating the origin/cause of belief. Nor can we infer that x does not exist simply because people disagree about x or the nature of x. Instead, you must evaluate the “reasons/premises” for belief. See my video on the Blind men and elephant for more. 27 is not a prime number, but I’ll end here anyway.

Incorrect. Correct. Not all opinions are equal. Some opinions are tested by the Socratic Method, some are not. Some opinions are based on facts, some are based on false claims. Some opinions are logically consistent with your other opinions, and some are grossly inconsistent. Some opinions turn out to be true, and some do not. Some opinions are about factual matters and some opinions are about personal preferences. The fact/opinion distinction most Americans learn in elementary school does not do justice to the many types of opinions.  Socrates would be very disappointed with the common complaint that “it’s all just opinion.”

The correct answer is true. The Socratic Method involves asking questions that introduce counterexamples. For example, if I define justice as “giving a person what belongs to them,” a modern day Socrates might ask, “Do you think it is justice to give your drunk friend his car keys?” Notice this question helps me see the exception to my opinion/definition of justice.

The correct answer is false. Socratic Wisdom is knowing you do not know. It is deeply understanding that the limits of your mind are not the limits of reality. The Oracle at Delphi declared Socrates the wisest because he knew he did not know. However, he was not an idiot. He explored deeply and knew why the answers given by scientists, philosophers, politicians, artists, etc. were not knowledge. The difference is they think they know whereas Socrates knew he did not know, and that is wisdom.

The correct answer is false. Reread Chapter 4 if you missed it. Your opinions can be logically consistent or inconsistent. The Socratic Method can help you clarify and deepen your opinions thereby increasing the probability that they are true or, at least, reasoned. Indeed, there is a difference between a mere opinion and a reasoned opinion. One purpose of philosophy is to examine your hidden beliefs, including those you have about opinions. Midgley once compared philosophy to plumbing; it’s an activity that takes care of hidden pipes and beliefs.

False is the correct answer. If you answered true, you just committed the genetic fallacy and destroyed another 10% of the universe. That 10% included Earth. It’s a sad day. See chapter 3 for more on the genetic fallacy.

Yes, “Is a triangle a circle?” is the correct answer. “A shape” isn’t a sufficient definition for circle because there are many shapes that are not circles (e.g. triangles). This definition of circle includes too much because it does not exclude all non-circles. Socrates would ask, “Is a triangle a circle?”

Notice you have often engaged in the Socratic Method, though you did not know the name of what you were engaging in. It is closely related to the method of giving counterexamples. For example, if a scientist says, “all crows are black”, we only need one counterexample (a nonblack crow) to prove that theory false. Popper argued that science primarily progresses in hypothesis/counterexample way. Science is not so much generalizing in an inductive way, but giving empirical counterexamples to hypotheses. See the falsifiability chapter for more.

The correct answer is Is Paul’s belief that water is composed of nitrogen instead of hydrogen a form of knowledge? because it is the only question that brings up an exception to my definition and causes me to refine and deepen my definition of knowledge. Not all beliefs are knowledge.

Also, perception is not knowledge because there would be no mistaken perceptions if it were. Most philosophers start with a definition of knowledge as “justified true belief,” which is much better than other definitions of knowledge… but it too has problems. For example, what counts as justification? Research epistemology for more.

The correct answer is “Would it be just to steal the organs of a healthy person to save five sick people?” Your answer is probably no, so your idea of justice is not simply about saving the maximum number of lives.

The fact that justice may be opinion is irrelevant because opinions can be consistent or inconsistent. The fact that people argue about what justice is…. is also irrelevant because we cannot infer there is no truth simply because people disagree. The fact that we should respect other peoples’ opinions is irrelevant since we aren’t talking about whether an opinion should be allowed, but whether it is right or reasonable. You have a right to an opinion, but not a right to be right. Socrates is tough.

The correct answer is false. Socrates would never argue like that. First, moral opinions can be tested with the Socratic Method. Second, some moral opinions are based on facts and some are not. Third, some moral opinions are consistent with other opinions and facts, and some are not. Fourth, you cannot logically infer that there is no truth simply because people disagree and have different opinions about the truth. We must think more deeply about the nature of opinion instead of going with the understanding of them we gained in elementary school. Check out my Socratic Method Video for more.

The correct answer is false. His peers did not think he was handsome and had names for him. Search Botton’s “Socrates on Self Confidence” Documentary in YouTube to learn more.

Even if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it’s not C because I am reporting what his peers thought of him, not that he actually was handsome.

If you are thinking we can’t truly know what they thought because the past is past and we cannot return to it, then you are being skeptical not relativistic. See my video on relativism for more

The correct answer is false. Logical consistency is about the relationship between A and B, not whether A and B are true. When evaluating logical consistency, assume the statements are true and think about whether they fit together like the pieces of a puzzle. If you answered this correctly, please accept this box with nothing in it. If you answered incorrectly, you get nothing.

The correct answer is false. These three beliefs are logically inconsistent. If the first two statements are true, the third must be false. If the third is true, the first or second must be false. They cannot all be simultaneously true.

It’s not relative because I added the following clarifying statement in the question: *Assume I, Paul Stearns, am the person speaking these three sentences… you are not stating them.

The correct answer is true. There is some possible world in which all three statements could be true. Consistency is not about whether the statements are true, it is about whether they fit together like the pieces of a puzzle. Another way to think about it: these statements do not contradict each other, so they are consistent. Again, a person could create a logically consistent but false story. It happens frequently in fiction.

The correct answer is false. The first statement contradicts the second two together.

The correct answer is false. These statements are logically inconsistent. If the second and third statements are true, the first must be false. The argument takes the following form:

Premise 1: If A then B. (A=If God exists and B=Bob is mistaken)

Premise 2: Not B.

Conclusion: A

The conclusion should be not A. It is also an invalid argument.

If you answered this correctly, you have all you need to be happy. If you answered it incorrectly, you have all you need to be happy.

No is the correct answer. Once we clearly define terms, the universe cannot both have a beginning back in time and be infinite back in time… though it could depend on a necessary being regardless of whether it is infinite or finite (see cosmological argument from contingency video).

The correct answer is true. This chapter is all about logical consistency, not logical inferences.

Throwing away Zen Mind is correct Zen Mind. You get a smack to the head no matter how you answered this question.

True, of course it is.

So, I recently started meditating, it beats sitting around doing nothing.

It it’s true that “this sentence is false” then the sentence is false. So, it it’s true then it’s false.

If it’s false that “this sentence is false” then it’s false that the sentence is false, so the sentence is true. So, if it’s false then it’s true.

This seems logically inconsistent.

One might argue that there is only one statement, so there is no way it can be consistent or inconsistent because there is no other statement to be consistent or inconsistent with. However, the statement still seems inconsistent with itself (not because it refers to itself, but because it refers to itself in an inconsistent way).

False is the correct answer. Science is the process of observing, hypothesizing, testing/experimenting, and interpreting the results.

The correct answer is true. The process of observing, hypothesizing, and testing is simple in theory, but often difficult to apply in practice.

False is the correct answer. Science is our most powerful form of prediction and knowledge, but it is not the only form. Logic, math, introspection are other “tools” for knowledge. These issues arose with logical positivism. Interestingly, the statement “any statement that cannot be scientifically proven/disproven is meaningless” seems to be self refuting because the statement itself cannot be scientifically proven/disproven. See the next chapter on falsifiability and research the philosophy of science for more.

B (forming hypotheses) is the correct answer. Notice that it may require creativity to form a hypothesis that fits the data well. Einstein, for example, was very creative in imagining possible hypotheses that nobody else thought of. Science is not simply about the facts, it involves creative thinking to construct the “systems/hypotheses” that fit the data and make testable predictions. Science is not simply about objective thinking and facts… so how does one cultivate creativity?

Yes, B seems to fit best. Notice that thinking of a good hypothesis may require a great deal of background knowledge about how cars work. A mechanic will apply the same method, but will quickly come up with good hypotheses because she understands how cars work and has more experience in the field. Notice too that each step of the scientific method can involve collaboration. We test each other’s work to verify results, we collaborate to form new hypotheses, etc. Science is at its best when it is a collaborative effort to prove and disprove scientific hypotheses.

False is correct. The Socratic Method is not necessarily empirical like science is. The Socratic Method uses the method of counterexamples to clarify ideas, including opinions on ethical issues. The scientific method empirically tests all ideas. There is some overlap, but they are not identical. The research of Newton is different from the research of Socrates.

The correct answer is false. Science and logic are not the same. Scientists use logic and logicians may use scientific facts as premises, but there are differences. One difference is science is based on empirical testing, logic isn’t. For example, a logician can sit in her armchair and infer that “All A are C” from “All A are B” and “All B are C.” No empirical testing is necessary. Some logical truths seem presupposed for science, not proven by it.
Is logic, and all forms of knowledge, ultimately founded on observable facts? Well, this is a deep discussion/debate in philosophy that nobody has answered to everyone’s satisfaction (empiricism vs. rationalism). Check out my video on Kant for a bit more.

False is correct. Science and math are not the same because some mathematical truths seem to be presupposed by science, not proven by it. Still, there is much debate about the nature of math and it’s relationship to science. Toolkit analogy: Math is like a screwdriver, science like a hammer.

Many people assume math is simply a constructed language or a set of symbolic truths entirely derived from experience of the world. Mathematicians and philosophers of math question such simplistic assumptions. Math may be derived from experience or it may be constructed in a Kantian way… or it may be arbitrarily created… and there are more options. Research mathematical realism and the philosophy of math for more. I will have a video on this soon in my YouTube Channel.

False. Science doesn’t usually deal with certainties. In this case, I certainly know I am currently aware through introspection, not science. If all the scientists in the world said I am not currently aware, I would absolutely know they were mistaken. I may be mistaken about there being an external world, etc, but not that I am aware and seem to perceive such. This goes back to Descartes and is best explained by David Chalmers.

This is false. We cannot observe oughts through a telescope or microscope. We observe facts. I can use a telescope to observe Pat stealing from Holly, but I cannot observe any goodness or badness through the telescope.
If we want to save Suzie’s life, science can tell us we ought to give Suzie insulin. However, Science cannot tell us it is true that we ought to save her life. This would be a foundational ethical claim.  Most philosophers agree that you cannot logically derive an ought from an is alone. You cannot logically derive a value from a fact alone. Research metaethics for more.

Correct, if a theory is falsifiable, then that is a strength, not a weakness, of the theory. It can be better tested if it is falsifiable.

True. Falsifiability means we can imagine what conditions would make it false, it doesn’t mean the theory is actually false. By the way, Life is all about perspective. The sinking of the Titanic was a miracle to all the lobsters in the ship’s kitchen.

True, this is falsifiable because we can imagine what conditions would make it false. For example, imagine we looked through a telescope in the area between Mercury and Earth. Imagine we did this for years and even traveled there, but never saw a planet. If that happened, the theory would be false. Since we can imagine what would make it false, the theory is falsifiable. Of course, in reality, the theory is true.

True. This is a falsifiable/good theory because one can imagine what would make it false (e.g. observing a nonwhite swan). Unlike the planet theory, this theory also turns out to be false since there are black swans.

False. There is nothing I can imagine that would make this false when terms are precisely defined, but I am more justified in believing that I am currently conscious than I am in believing anything else. So, there are exceptions…. some theories/statements are obviously true even though they are unfalsifiable and cannot be tested in an objective way. There is no objective scientific or mathematical methodology that could make you 100% sure I am currently consciousness… only my current introspective experiences do that. See David Chalmers or my video on “Why consciousness is mysterious in every worldview” for more.

True. Newton’s laws are falsifiable.
Don’t you hate it when you are about to hug someone really good looking and your face hits the mirror?

False, neither seems falsifiable in principle. Something outside of space/time cannot be observed and would make no difference to space/time. So everything would be the same regardless of whether the first statement is true or false. The same holds for the second statement (arguably) because, even if there were no space/time, people can’t help but live as if there is space/time. Another way to get at this truth is to argue that observation presupposes space so one cannot prove space exists through observation. Of course, this could all be wrong…. in which case… you should devote your life to studying it and then write a book about it. If there were higher dimensions, how would we know them? Check out the Flatland Book ….

True. It is falsifiable. Go look in the garage. If you see nothing, it is probably false.

By the way, I started out with nothing and still have most of it.

True or false. True, it seems falsifiable because one could build a building with 2+2=5 math to prove that 2+2=5 is false (since the building would collapse). That is, 2+2=4 works in the real world, and 2+2=5 doesn’t work. I can imagine 2+2=4 not working, though I cannot understand why.On the other hand, most philosophers would say 2+2=4 is not a falsifiable form of knowledge because it is a necessary statement, there are no imaginable conditions that would make it false. So, 2+2=4 is not falsifiable… and it’s not science, it’s math. Study the philosophy of math to think more deeply about this one.

True. The main idea behind falsifiablity is that good scientific theories should be testable in principle, we should be able to imagine what would make them false. Pseudoscience often fails this test; pseudoscience is often unfalsifiable.

C is correct. In deductive arguments, the arguer is claiming the conclusion must follow if we assume the premises are true. In inductive arguments, the arguer is claiming the conclusion probably follows if we assume the premises are true. The other three answers are common misconceptions; see Chapter 10 to explore them in more depth.

“One ought to hold on to one’s heart; for if one lets it go, one soon loses control of the head too.”
―Nietzsche

Deductive is correct. If we assume the premises are true, the conclusion MUST follow. It is a valid deductive argument. Of course, it is valid, but unsound. See Chapter 11 to understand the difference between valid and sound.

Deductive. If we assume the premises are true, the conclusion must follow. It is a valid deductive argument. Of course, I am skeptical about both premises so I do not think it is sound.

This is an inductive argument. One hint is that it is a generalization, which are inductive. Can you explain why generalizations are inductive?

Deductive. Notice it moves from particular claims to general claims, so not all deductive arguments move from general to specific.

Inductive is correct. Inductive arguments add something new whereas deductive arguments seem to have the conclusion contained within the premises. This definition may help you better understand the distinction between deductive and inductive.

Deductive is the correct answer because the conclusion must follow if we assume the premises are true. However, if he has more than one son or more than one wife, then these words are ambiguous and one may think it inductive. I would simply call it an ambiguous argument.

Inductive is correct. The word “probably” is a clue.

Inductive. Another generalization. Check out Hume’s Problem of Induction for an interesting philosophical puzzle.

False, of course. There are two major ways premises support conclusions. The words “deductive” and “inductive” give us a way to talk about these two ways and to thereby better analyze and evaluate any particular argument. Those who understand the vocabulary of logic have a deeper understanding of arguments and can more precisely and clearly communicate with philosophers, logicians, and rational people.

“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.” Euripides

False is the correct answer. Morality and law may overlap, but they are not identical.

If morality and law were identical, we could consult the law to determine what is right. But this is ridiculous because there are immoral laws. For example, cheating on your spouse is legal in most states, but you probably believe it is immoral.

The correct answer is false. Hobbes Social Contract Theory is not a form of relativism. The purpose of moral rules are to promote human flourishing and avoid the “State of Nature.” Some moral rules do that better than others.

True is correct. Let’s begin by explaining why they are not identical. First, atheists like Thomas Hobbes have moral ways of thinking, so religion cannot be necessary for morality. Second, religious people often give “nonreligious” reasons for their morality, so the moral systems of theists are not entirely based on their religious beliefs. For example, both theists and atheists who choose to pull the lever in the trolley dilemma argue it is right because it will save a net of four lives. They do not quote a holy book or any other religious authority. In this case, the theist uses the same type of reasoning as the atheist (i.e. utilitarian intuitions). The only difference between the atheist and theist is where they believe these intuitions originate. The theist believes they originate in God, whereas the atheist usually believes they come from reason, upbringing, culture, or an evolved human nature.

Of course, not all religious people reason in this way. Religious fundamentalism is a type of religion that is based on authority and the literal interpretation of texts.

The correct answer is false.

I prefer green over blue, and I do not need to give you reasons for my preference precisely because it is a mere preference.

But If I prefer slavery over freedom, I do need to give reasons because morality is not merely preference. We give arguments when we give moral reasons. We try to logically persuade each other about moral issues. So, most moral opinions are not merely preferences. Also, one might argue that “x is wrong” based on factual claims he believes to be true (e.g. it is immoral for women to vote because they are intellectually inferior). This person may change his moral opinion if he learns his supporting claim is false (e.g. women are not intellectually inferior). So morality is not JUST about feelings or preferences.

As you will see in the relativism chapter, morality is more than mere preference though it might be based on preference at a fundamental level.  Still, there is a world of difference between “I prefer strawberry ice cream” and “I do not believe slavery is right.” A study of ethics will make this clear.

False is correct. Morality does not exist in the state of nature, rather humans create moral rules to escape the premoral State of Nature. Humans then discover which moral and legal rules do that best.

True and this is one criticism against SCT.

The correct answer is false. Perhaps Hobbes’ Social Contract Theory does not fully explain morality because morality exists before society and governments are formed. Governments may get their power from the consent of the governed, but moral rights exist before any consent is given. If you agree with Locke’s analysis, then Hobbes’ Social Contract Theory may explain where much of morality comes from, but it cannot explain the whole of it. It cannot explain natural rights, natural laws, or any form of morality that is not based on consent to escape the state of nature.

This statement is true, and this is one criticism. Locke (and others) do not believe Hobbes fully understood human nature. Remember, for Hobbes, it is in my self interest to give up some of my natural freedom to escape the state of nature. It is in my self interest to follow certain moral and legal principles because civilization is much better for me than the awful state of nature. Hobbes also explained that we are each seeking only self interest. That is, Hobbes is a psychological egoist. You can find a criticism of psychological egoism on my YouTube Channel. Psychological Egoism Video

This answer is false. One reason Hobbes’ SCT was revolutionary was because it was not based on belief in God. As we shall see later, many ethical systems are not based on belief in God. Also, some philosophers believe in God, but do not base their morality/ethical systems on such belief (e.g. Kant).

Yes. One way is to believe God creates moral rules to help us flourish and avoid the state of chaos/nature. There are many types of religious people and there are many types of atheists.

False. That is psychological egoism. Ethical Egoism is not a descriptive theory, it is a prescriptive/normative theory stating we SHOULD always act in self interest.

False is correct. The paradox of hedonism states that we best reach happiness when we don’t seek it. The best way to live, according to Frankl, is to strive for excellence, goodness, etc… and let happiness come as a by product if it comes at all.

The correct answer is false. Ethical egoists believe you should always act in your self interest, but Bob believes it is sometimes good to sacrifice self interest. Bob is not acting according to ethical egoism when he sacrifices his self interest to help a starving child. One would have to inflate the meaning of self interest to argue otherwise. Why did he do it? We can speculate about all his possible motivations, but listing motives does not make them true.

True is correct. If that is here sole motive, then her religion is founded on egoism. Of course, each religious person has many motives. Some say, “one must die to self, rise above self interest, be reborn, etc.” So I do not think all religious motivations are based on self interest since many religious traditions talk of transcending the self in love, dissolving the self, or annihilating all self interest when encountering something larger than self.

False. This would be a straw man version of ethical egoism. The stronger form of ethical egoism states that you should do that which is in your long term self-interest. This means the serious ethical egoist will discipline h/body and mind… and not take reckless risks that would effect his long term self-interest. The smart ethical egoist recognizes it may be in his long term self interest to exercise and give to charity even when he doesn’t feel like it.

True. Good is defined by what is in my long term self interest. For example, if I am ordered to kill a child and doing so will protect my career, family, future and long term self interest… then, according to ethical egoism, it is right for me to kill the child. But most of us feel or believe killing the child is wrong, so we have moral beliefs that are not simply based on self interest.

False, this is actually an argument based on utilitarianism, not e egoism. See the ethical egoism chapter in my ethics course for more information:

True, this is a problem for ethical egoism. Ethical egoism says they should only care about their self-interest. An ethical egoist shouldn’t care about the future and posterity because she will be dead in the future.

If an ethical egoist counters that their “self” includes their grandchildren, notice how the meaning of “self” has been greatly inflated to meet the posterity objection. If one allows this inflated definition of self, the theory is now closer to utilitarianism than ethical egoism.

In short, why should I care about posterity if there is nothing in it for me, nothing in my self-interest? But I do care, so ethical egoism is inconsistent with my core moral beliefs.

This is false. Most non-egoists believe self love is a virtue, but it’s not the only virtue. See Aristotle’s Golden Mean, for example. The ethical egoist is taking an extreme position in trying to reduce all of morality to self interest. The egoist (always act in self interest) and the extreme altruist (morality is always based on altruism) both seem extreme… both commit the black and white fallacy. Morality (and what motivates people) is much more complex.

True. See the ethical egoism chapter for an explanation:

True or “I don’t know” are correct. This is one possible conclusion one could draw from the Prisoner’s Dilemma. But if it is in my self interest to not always be self interested and not always believe I am self interested… then is that still ethical egoism? That is for you to explore.

True. Most believe utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics are stronger. The point is that it is too simplistic to say morality is always based on self-interest. When you think morally, you are considering your interests, but you are also considering the interests of others for their own sake.

Of course, it does not follow from these examples that you must always sacrifice your own interests, rather it only shows that their interests count too. As Lawrence Hinman says, “Self-love is a virtue, but it’s not the only virtue.”

In a way, this criticism shows that ethical egoism does not even enter the moral sphere of thinking because moral thinking begins when we start considering other peoples’ interests, not simply our own.

False, there is now quite a bit of scientific and logical evidence against psychological egoism. It is not as plausible as it initially seems. Most of the confusion results from how people interpret evolution, misinterpret it. See the psychological egoism video for more: