6.2 Quiz Critical Thinking by Example


1. Bill: “I can’t believe that Brokeback Mountain did not win the Oscar at the Academy Awards for best picture. Clearly, it should have won. I’ve seen it seven times. I wouldn’t see any movie that many times unless it was the best picture.

Lil: I agree with you Bill. In fact, Rodney Williams, a well-known and well-respected movie critic, writing in the New York Review of Movies said “Brokeback Mountain” is the clearest case ever of deserving, but not getting, the Oscar for best film.

Dawn: I disagree, Bill. There are many better pictures out there. There is “Space Truckers” starring Dennis Hopper, and the classic from 1968, “The Shoes of the Fisherman” starring Anthony Quinn.

Jill: I agree Bill. I heard some of the Hollywood judges interviewed on the matter. They argued that the pacing of the movie was a bit uneven, and this stopped it getting the top award. But I know they did not vote for it because they are cowards: they are afraid of being criticized for choosing a gay cowboy film.

Phil: Sorry Bill, you’re dead wrong. It wasn’t the best movie of the year. Roger Ebert gave it a “three thumbs down”. I’m not sure where he got the third thumb, but there you have it.

Dill: Dawn, I think you have misrepresented what Bill was saying. Bill said that Brokeback Mountain should have won the best picture, this year; not for all of eternity.

Wil: Dill, it is you who are misrepresenting. I don’t think Dawn intentionally misunderstood what Bill was saying.

Zack: I think the sex scenes should have been more graphic. You can bet they would have been if it were heterosexual sex.

Abby: What you say may be true Zack, but I’m not sure I see its relevance. A movie can have multiple flaws and still be worthy of the Oscar. So where do you stand Zack?

According to Bill, his seeing a movie seven times is a ______condition for it being the best film of the year.

a) necessary.
b) sufficient.
c) necessary and sufficient.
d) neither necessary nor sufficient.
2. The best evaluation of Bill's argument is

a) it commits the red herring fallacy.
b) it commits the strawperson fallacy.
c) it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
d) it commits the fallacy of problematic premise.
e) it commits the fallacy of guilt by association.
f) it commits the fallacy of improper appeal to an epistemic authority.
g) it is a good argument.

3. The best evaluation of Lil's argument is

a) it commits the red herring fallacy.
b) it commits the strawperson fallacy.
c) it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
d) it commits the fallacy of tu quoque.
e) it commits the fallacy of guilt by association.
f) it commits the fallacy of improper appeal to an epistemic authority.
g) it is a good argument.

4. The best evaluation of Dawn's argument is

a) it commits the red herring fallacy.
b) it commits the strawperson fallacy.
c) it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
d) it commits the fallacy of tu quoque.
e) it commits the fallacy of guilt by association.
f) it commits the fallacy of improper appeal to an epistemic authority.
g) it is a good argument.

5. The best evaluation of Jill's argument is

a) it commits the red herring fallacy.
b) it commits the strawperson fallacy.
c) it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
d) it commits the fallacy of tu quoque.
e) it commits the fallacy of guilt by association.
f) it commits the fallacy of improper appeal to an epistemic authority.
g) it is a good argument.

6. The best evaluation of Phil's argument is

a) it commits the red herring fallacy.
b) it commits the strawperson fallacy.
c) it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
d) it commits the fallacy of tu quoque.
e) it commits the fallacy of guilt by association.
f) it commits the fallacy of improper appeal to an epistemic authority.
g) it is a good argument.

7. The best evaluation of Dill's argument is

a) it commits the red herring fallacy.
b) it commits the strawperson fallacy.
c) it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
d) it commits the fallacy of tu quoque.
e) it commits the fallacy of guilt by association.
f) it commits the fallacy of improper appeal to an epistemic authority.
g) it is a good argument.

8. The best evaluation of Wil's argument is

a) it commits the red herring fallacy.
b) it commits the strawperson fallacy.
c) it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
d) it commits the fallacy of tu quoque.
e) it commits the fallacy of guilt by association.
f) it commits the fallacy of improper appeal to an epistemic authority.
g) it is a good argument.

9. The best evaluation of Zack's argument is

a) it commits the red herring fallacy.
b) it commits the strawperson fallacy.
c) it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
d) it commits the fallacy of tu quoque.
e) it commits the fallacy of guilt by association.
f) it commits the fallacy of improper appeal to an epistemic authority.
g) it is a good argument.

10. The best evaluation of Abby's argument is

a) it commits the red herring fallacy.
b) it commits the strawperson fallacy.
c) it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
d) it commits the fallacy of tu quoque.
e) it commits the fallacy of guilt by association.
f) it commits the fallacy of improper appeal to an epistemic authority.
g) it is a good argument.

This is more feedback!
This is the feedback!



Back to Top