6.1 Relevance Quiz


1. Maddy: “I hate guns. I had a terrible childhood accident involving guns and I have been deathly afraid of them ever since. I have come to realize that unless we ban private ownership of guns in Canada we have not done what we can to stop murder in our great country. The reason is obvious: guns are used to murder. If we don’t do all we can to eliminate murder then we must share in the moral responsibility for murder. Murder is one of the most heinous crimes, so we should never share in any responsibility for murder.”
Marc: “Maddy, I don’t know how you can say that. I just Googled some stats and Wikipedia says that only 30% of the murders in Canada involve guns, so not all murders involve guns. Eliminating guns will do nothing to stop murderers using a knife or a vehicle, so eliminating guns will not eliminate murder.”
Mandy: “People have a right to own guns. We should never violate people’s rights. We should not outlaw guns-period!”
Michael: “I don’t think people under the age of 5 should be able to own a gun, so I don’t think that people have a right to guns. Perhaps some people have a right to own a gun, but not everyone does.”
Molly: “Michael, I hope you are being silly, because if not, then your argument is silly. Surely you cannot think that Mandy intended to suggest that children have a right to own a gun. I think this would be a terribly uncharitable understanding of what she was arguing. Sure, children have some rights, e.g., the right to life. But other rights, like the right to decide whether to accept medical treatment, we do not think apply to young children. We would not say that a child of 5 has a right to refuse getting a lifesaving needle over her parents’ objections simply because the child refuses on the basis of a fear of needles. On the other hand, it is generally recognized that competent adults have the right to refuse medical treatment. Similarly, I think it is a gross misinterpretation of Mandy’s argument to think that she is suggesting that children have a right to own guns.”
Mohammed: “I remember an article by the criminologist Lawrence Southwick Jr. in the Atlantic Economic Journal about a decade ago that proved that guns do not cause crime. So, banning guns will not reduce murder.”

a) The conclusion of Maddy's argument is "I hate guns".
b) The conclusion of Maddy's argument is "guns are used to murde"'.
c) The conclusion of Maddy's argument is "we should never share in responsibility for murder".
d) The conclusion of Maddy's argument is that private ownership of guns ought to be banned in Canada.
2. Maddy: “I hate guns. I had a terrible childhood accident involving guns and I have been deathly afraid of them ever since. I have come to realize that unless we ban private ownership of guns in Canada we have not done what we can to stop murder in our great country. The reason is obvious: guns are used to murder. If we don’t do all we can to eliminate murder then we must share in the moral responsibility for murder. Murder is one of the most heinous crimes, so we should never share in any responsibility for murder.” Marc: “Maddy, I don’t know how you can say that. I just Googled some stats and Wikipedia says that only 30% of the murders in Canada involve guns, so not all murders involve guns. Eliminating guns will do nothing to stop murderers using a knife or a vehicle, so eliminating guns will not eliminate murder.” Mandy: “People have a right to own guns. We should never violate people’s rights. We should not outlaw guns-period!” Michael: “I don’t think people under the age of 5 should be able to own a gun, so I don’t think that people have a right to guns. Perhaps some people have a right to own a gun, but not everyone does.” Molly: “Michael, I hope you are being silly, because if not, then your argument is silly. Surely you cannot think that Mandy intended to suggest that children have a right to own a gun. I think this would be a terribly uncharitable understanding of what she was arguing. Sure, children have some rights, e.g., the right to life. But other rights, like the right to decide whether to accept medical treatment, we do not think apply to young children. We would not say that a child of 5 has a right to refuse getting a lifesaving needle over her parents’ objections simply because the child refuses on the basis of a fear of needles. On the other hand, it is generally recognized that competent adults have the right to refuse medical treatment. Similarly, I think it is a gross misinterpretation of Mandy’s argument to think that she is suggesting that children have a right to own guns.” Mohammed: “I remember an article by the criminologist Lawrence Southwick Jr. in the Atlantic Economic Journal about a decade ago that proved that guns do not cause crime. So, banning guns will not reduce murder.”

a) The claim made by Marc “so not all murders involve guns” is best understood as a main conclusion.
b) The claim made by Marc “so not all murders involve guns” is best understood as a subpremise that is not a subconclusion.
c) The claim made by Marc “so not all murders involve guns” is best understood as a subconclusion.
d) The claim made by Marc “so not all murders involve guns” is best understood as none of the above
3. Maddy: “I hate guns. I had a terrible childhood accident involving guns and I have been deathly afraid of them ever since. I have come to realize that unless we ban private ownership of guns in Canada we have not done what we can to stop murder in our great country. The reason is obvious: guns are used to murder. If we don’t do all we can to eliminate murder then we must share in the moral responsibility for murder. Murder is one of the most heinous crimes, so we should never share in any responsibility for murder.”
Marc: “Maddy, I don’t know how you can say that. I just Googled some stats and Wikipedia says that only 30% of the murders in Canada involve guns, so not all murders involve guns. Eliminating guns will do nothing to stop murderers using a knife or a vehicle, so eliminating guns will not eliminate murder.”
Mandy: “People have a right to own guns. We should never violate people’s rights. We should not outlaw guns-period!”
Michael: “I don’t think people under the age of 5 should be able to own a gun, so I don’t think that people have a right to guns. Perhaps some people have a right to own a gun, but not everyone does.”
Molly: “Michael, I hope you are being silly, because if not, then your argument is silly. Surely you cannot think that Mandy intended to suggest that children have a right to own a gun. I think this would be a terribly uncharitable understanding of what she was arguing. Sure, children have some rights, e.g., the right to life. But other rights, like the right to decide whether to accept medical treatment, we do not think apply to young children. We would not say that a child of 5 has a right to refuse getting a lifesaving needle over her parents’ objections simply because the child refuses on the basis of a fear of needles. On the other hand, it is generally recognized that competent adults have the right to refuse medical treatment. Similarly, I think it is a gross misinterpretation of Mandy’s argument to think that she is suggesting that children have a right to own guns.”
Mohammed: “I remember an article by the criminologist Lawrence Southwick Jr. in the Atlantic Economic Journal about a decade ago that proved that guns do not cause crime. So, banning guns will not reduce murder.”

a) The best evaluation of Marc's argument is that it commits the tu quoque fallacy.
b) The best evaluation of Marc's argument is that it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
c) The best evaluation of Marc's argument is that it commits the red herring fallacy.
d) The best evaluation of Marc's argument is that it commits the strawperson fallacy.
e) The best evaluation of Marc's argument is that it is a good argument.
4. Maddy: “I hate guns. I had a terrible childhood accident involving guns and I have been deathly afraid of them ever since. I have come to realize that unless we ban private ownership of guns in Canada we have not done what we can to stop murder in our great country. The reason is obvious: guns are used to murder. If we don’t do all we can to eliminate murder then we must share in the moral responsibility for murder. Murder is one of the most heinous crimes, so we should never share in any responsibility for murder.”
Marc: “Maddy, I don’t know how you can say that. I just Googled some stats and Wikipedia says that only 30% of the murders in Canada involve guns, so not all murders involve guns. Eliminating guns will do nothing to stop murderers using a knife or a vehicle, so eliminating guns will not eliminate murder.”
Mandy: “People have a right to own guns. We should never violate people’s rights. We should not outlaw guns-period!”
Michael: “I don’t think people under the age of 5 should be able to own a gun, so I don’t think that people have a right to guns. Perhaps some people have a right to own a gun, but not everyone does.”
Molly: “Michael, I hope you are being silly, because if not, then your argument is silly. Surely you cannot think that Mandy intended to suggest that children have a right to own a gun. I think this would be a terribly uncharitable understanding of what she was arguing. Sure, children have some rights, e.g., the right to life. But other rights, like the right to decide whether to accept medical treatment, we do not think apply to young children. We would not say that a child of 5 has a right to refuse getting a lifesaving needle over her parents’ objections simply because the child refuses on the basis of a fear of needles. On the other hand, it is generally recognized that competent adults have the right to refuse medical treatment. Similarly, I think it is a gross misinterpretation of Mandy’s argument to think that she is suggesting that children have a right to own guns.”
Mohammed: “I remember an article by the criminologist Lawrence Southwick Jr. in the Atlantic Economic Journal about a decade ago that proved that guns do not cause crime. So, banning guns will not reduce murder.”

a) The best evaluation of Mandy's argument is that it commits the red herring fallacy.
b) The best evaluation of Mandy's argument is that it commits the strawperson fallacy.
c) The best evaluation of Mandy's argument is that it commits the fallacy of appeal to tradition.
d) The best evaluation of Mandy's argument is that it commits the fallacy of appeal to ignorance.
e) The best evaluation of Mandy's argument is that, assuming the premises are true, it is a good argument.
5. Maddy: “I hate guns. I had a terrible childhood accident involving guns and I have been deathly afraid of them ever since. I have come to realize that unless we ban private ownership of guns in Canada we have not done what we can to stop murder in our great country. The reason is obvious: guns are used to murder. If we don’t do all we can to eliminate murder then we must share in the moral responsibility for murder. Murder is one of the most heinous crimes, so we should never share in any responsibility for murder.”
Marc: “Maddy, I don’t know how you can say that. I just Googled some stats and Wikipedia says that only 30% of the murders in Canada involve guns, so not all murders involve guns. Eliminating guns will do nothing to stop murderers using a knife or a vehicle, so eliminating guns will not eliminate murder.”
Mandy: “People have a right to own guns. We should never violate people’s rights. We should not outlaw guns-period!”
Michael: “I don’t think people under the age of 5 should be able to own a gun, so I don’t think that people have a right to guns. Perhaps some people have a right to own a gun, but not everyone does.”
Molly: “Michael, I hope you are being silly, because if not, then your argument is silly. Surely you cannot think that Mandy intended to suggest that children have a right to own a gun. I think this would be a terribly uncharitable understanding of what she was arguing. Sure, children have some rights, e.g., the right to life. But other rights, like the right to decide whether to accept medical treatment, we do not think apply to young children. We would not say that a child of 5 has a right to refuse getting a lifesaving needle over her parents’ objections simply because the child refuses on the basis of a fear of needles. On the other hand, it is generally recognized that competent adults have the right to refuse medical treatment. Similarly, I think it is a gross misinterpretation of Mandy’s argument to think that she is suggesting that children have a right to own guns.”
Mohammed: “I remember an article by the criminologist Lawrence Southwick Jr. in the Atlantic Economic Journal about a decade ago that proved that guns do not cause crime. So, banning guns will not reduce murder.”

a) The best evaluation of Michael’s argument is it commits the fallacy of tu quoque.
b) The best evaluation of Michael’s argument is it commits the red herring fallacy.

c) The best evaluation of Michael’s argument is it commits the strawperson fallacy.
d) The best evaluation of Michael’s argument is it commits the fallacy of irrelevant reason.
e) The best evaluation of Michael’s argument is it commits the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. .
6. Maddy: “I hate guns. I had a terrible childhood accident involving guns and I have been deathly afraid of them ever since. I have come to realize that unless we ban private ownership of guns in Canada we have not done what we can to stop murder in our great country. The reason is obvious: guns are used to murder. If we don’t do all we can to eliminate murder then we must share in the moral responsibility for murder. Murder is one of the most heinous crimes, so we should never share in any responsibility for murder.”
Marc: “Maddy, I don’t know how you can say that. I just Googled some stats and Wikipedia says that only 30% of the murders in Canada involve guns, so not all murders involve guns. Eliminating guns will do nothing to stop murderers using a knife or a vehicle, so eliminating guns will not eliminate murder.”
Mandy: “People have a right to own guns. We should never violate people’s rights. We should not outlaw guns-period!”
Michael: “I don’t think people under the age of 5 should be able to own a gun, so I don’t think that people have a right to guns. Perhaps some people have a right to own a gun, but not everyone does.”
Molly: “Michael, I hope you are being silly, because if not, then your argument is silly. Surely you cannot think that Mandy intended to suggest that children have a right to own a gun. I think this would be a terribly uncharitable understanding of what she was arguing. Sure, children have some rights, e.g., the right to life. But other rights, like the right to decide whether to accept medical treatment, we do not think apply to young children. We would not say that a child of 5 has a right to refuse getting a lifesaving needle over her parents’ objections simply because the child refuses on the basis of a fear of needles. On the other hand, it is generally recognized that competent adults have the right to refuse medical treatment. Similarly, I think it is a gross misinterpretation of Mandy’s argument to think that she is suggesting that children have a right to own guns.”
Mohammed: “I remember an article by the criminologist Lawrence Southwick Jr. in the Atlantic Economic Journal about a decade ago that proved that guns do not cause crime. So, banning guns will not reduce murder.”

a) The best evaluation of Molly's argument is that it is a good argument.
b) The best evaluation of Molly's argument is that it commits the fallacy of irrelevant reason.
c) The best evaluation of Molly's argument is that it commits the fallacy of tu quoque.
d) The best evaluation of Molly's argument is that it commits the fallacy of appeal to ignorance.
e) The best evaluation of Molly's argument is that it commits the fallacy of improper appeal to an authority.
7. Maddy: “I hate guns. I had a terrible childhood accident involving guns and I have been deathly afraid of them ever since. I have come to realize that unless we ban private ownership of guns in Canada we have not done what we can to stop murder in our great country. The reason is obvious: guns are used to murder. If we don’t do all we can to eliminate murder then we must share in the moral responsibility for murder. Murder is one of the most heinous crimes, so we should never share in any responsibility for murder.”
Marc: “Maddy, I don’t know how you can say that. I just Googled some stats and Wikipedia says that only 30% of the murders in Canada involve guns, so not all murders involve guns. Eliminating guns will do nothing to stop murderers using a knife or a vehicle, so eliminating guns will not eliminate murder.”
Mandy: “People have a right to own guns. We should never violate people’s rights. We should not outlaw guns-period!”
Michael: “I don’t think people under the age of 5 should be able to own a gun, so I don’t think that people have a right to guns. Perhaps some people have a right to own a gun, but not everyone does.”
Molly: “Michael, I hope you are being silly, because if not, then your argument is silly. Surely you cannot think that Mandy intended to suggest that children have a right to own a gun. I think this would be a terribly uncharitable understanding of what she was arguing. Sure, children have some rights, e.g., the right to life. But other rights, like the right to decide whether to accept medical treatment, we do not think apply to young children. We would not say that a child of 5 has a right to refuse getting a lifesaving needle over her parents’ objections simply because the child refuses on the basis of a fear of needles. On the other hand, it is generally recognized that competent adults have the right to refuse medical treatment. Similarly, I think it is a gross misinterpretation of Mandy’s argument to think that she is suggesting that children have a right to own guns.”
Mohammed: “I remember an article by the criminologist Lawrence Southwick Jr. in the Atlantic Economic Journal about a decade ago that proved that guns do not cause crime. So, banning guns will not reduce murder.”

a) The best evaluation of Mohammed' argument is that it is a good argument, assuming the premises are true.
b) The best evaluation of Mohammed' argument is that it commits the red herring fallacy.
c) The best evaluation of Mohammed' argument is that it commits the strawperson fallacy.
d) The best evaluation of Mohammed' argument is that commits the fallacy of appeal to ignorance.
e) The best evaluation of Mohammed' argument is that it commits the fallacy of improper appeal to an authority.
8. "I think there is something wrong with that roullette wheel. It has landed on the number "6" twenty times in a row. You should bet on "6"."

a) The claim "I think there is something wrong with that roullette wheel" is the main conclusion.
b) The claim "I think there is something wrong with that roullette wheel" is a subconclusion.
c) The claim "I think there is something wrong with that roullette wheel" is a subpremise.
9. "I think there is something wrong with that roullette wheel. It has landed on the number "6" twenty times in a row. You should bet on "6"."

a) The claim "You should bet on "6" is the main conclusion.
b) The claim "You should bet on number "6"" is a subconclusion.
c) The claim "You should bet on number "6"" is a subpremise.
10. "I think there is something wrong with that roullette wheel. It has landed on the number "6" twenty times in a row. You should bet on "6"."

a) The best evaluation of this argument is that it is a good argument.
b) The best evaluation of this argument is that it commits the fallacy of irrelevant reason.
c) The best evaluation of this argument is that it commits the gamler's fallacy.
This is more feedback!
This is the feedback!



Back to Top