Match List - I with List - II. List I — Informal fallacy List II — Reason A.…
2024
Match List - I with List - II.
List I — Informal fallacy | List II — Reason |
|---|---|
A. Argument from Ignorance | I. Presumption |
B. Appeal to Emotion | II. Ambiguity |
C. Fallacy of Division | III. Relevance |
D. Begging the Question | IV. Defective Induction |
Choose the correct answer from the options given below:
Answer: D. (A)-(IV), (B)-(III), (C)-(II), (D)-(I) — Concept. Copi and Cohen sort informal fallacies into four families, each named after the kind of defect the argument suffers from. A fallacy of relevance…
- A.
(A)-(IV), (B)-(II), (C)-(III), (D)-(I)
- B.
(A)-(IV), (B)-(I), (C)-(III), (D)-(II)
- C.
(A)-(I), (B)-(III), (C)-(II), (D)-(IV)
- D.
(A)-(IV), (B)-(III), (C)-(II), (D)-(I)
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Concept. Copi and Cohen sort informal fallacies into four families, each named after the kind of defect the argument suffers from. A fallacy of relevance offers premises that are logically beside the point though psychologically persuasive; a fallacy of defective induction offers relevant premises that are far too weak to support the conclusion; a fallacy of presumption smuggles an unwarranted assumption into the premises; and a fallacy of ambiguity turns on a word or phrase whose meaning shifts within the argument.
The four families at a glance.
Relevance — the premises have no logical bearing on the conclusion.
Defective induction — the premises bear on the conclusion but give it far too little inductive support.
Presumption — the argument silently assumes something it is not entitled to assume.
Ambiguity — a term or construction changes meaning between one part of the argument and another.
Application. Test each fallacy in List I against those definitions.
Informal fallacy | Family | Why it belongs there |
|---|---|---|
Argument from Ignorance | Defective Induction (IV) | It concludes that a claim is true merely because it has not been proved false. The absence of a disproof is relevant evidence, but it is nowhere near strong enough to establish the conclusion, so the defect is a weak induction. |
Appeal to Emotion | Relevance (III) | It replaces evidence with feeling — enthusiasm, pity, fear, group loyalty. Those feelings have no logical bearing on whether the conclusion is true, so the premises are irrelevant. |
Fallacy of Division | Ambiguity (II) | It infers that what holds of a whole must hold of each of its parts. The predicate is being used collectively in the premise and distributively in the conclusion, so its meaning shifts mid-argument. |
Begging the Question | Presumption (I) | It assumes the very conclusion it sets out to prove, usually restated in different words. The argument presumes the truth of its own conclusion rather than establishing it. |
Cross-check. Each of the four families in List II is used exactly once, so the mapping must be a one-to-one pairing. Ambiguity is the family defined by a shift in the meaning of a term, and Division is the only fallacy in List I that turns on such a shift; Presumption is the family defined by an unwarranted assumption, and Begging the Question is the only item that assumes its own conclusion. Those two pairings are forced, and the remaining two follow.
Result. A–(IV), B–(III), C–(II), D–(I).