6.5 Quiz Critical Thinking by Example


1. "Zach: I’m sorry, but you have to admit it is pretty funny. Muhammad got a box of thirty assorted chocolates for his birthday. We agreed that we would each pick a chocolate at random and Muhammad chose first and was the only one who got a coconut. He hates coconut. You should have seen the look on his face when he bit into it. We are each going to randomly take a second chocolate. Nadine bet that Muhammad will choose another coconut chocolate, even though there are only three coconut chocolates in the entire box. She said he is on a real losing streak lately. We should bet the opposite because his luck is due to change.

Yvonne: You are right Zach, but for the wrong reason. The reason we should bet against Nadine is that the odds are against Muhammad picking another coconut chocolate. From what you said, there are 24 chocolates left, and two of these are coconut. If Muhammad chooses first again, then his chances of picking a coconut chocolate are 2 in 24. So, he is more likely to choose a non-coconut chocolate.

Vivian: I’m pretty sure you are wrong Zach. Muhammad is a strong believer in coconut. Last week I heard him say that coconut is very healthy for you.

Tina: Vivian, you have committed the ad hominem fallacy. Zach said that Muhammad does not like coconut, not that it is not healthy. I think Brussel sprouts are healthy, but I don’t like their taste.

Teresa: Speaking of fallacies, I think it is clear that Zach commits the gambler’s fallacy. Muhammad may have suffered a series of unfavorable outcomes in the past, but this has no influence on his present chocolate selection.

Steve: Nadine commits the gambler’s fallacy. Muhammad’s run of bad luck is no reason to think that it will continue in the present case.

Pieter: What you say can’t be right. Either Muhammad will choose a coconut chocolate or not. If he does, then his streak of bad luck will continue, and so Nadine is right. If he doesn’t, then his streak of bad luck will end and Zach is right. I’m not sure whether Nadine or Zach is right, but I am sure that at least one of them must have made a good argument.

Nick: Muhammad was named after a prophet. So, he will choose wisely."

The main conclusion of Zach's argument is that we should bet that Muhammad will choose a coconut chocolate.

a) True.
b) False
2. The best evaluation of Zach's argument is

a) it is a good argument.
b) it commits the straw person fallacy.
c) it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
d) it commits the gambler's fallacy.
e) it commits the fallacy of irrelevant reason.
f) it commits the red herring fallacy.
g) it commitst the fallacy of appeal to tradition.

3. The best evaluation of Yvonne's argument is

a) it is a good argument.
b) it commits the straw person fallacy.
c) it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
d) it commits the gambler's fallacy.
e) it commits the fallacy of irrelevant reason.
f) it commits the red herring fallacy.
g) it commitst the fallacy of appeal to tradition.

4. The best evaluation of Vivian's argument is

a) it is a good argument.
b) it commits the straw person fallacy.
c) it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
d) it commits the gambler's fallacy.
e) it commits the fallacy of irrelevant reason.
f) it commits the red herring fallacy.
g) it commitst the fallacy of appeal to tradition.

5. The best evaluation of Tina's argument is

a) it is a good argument.
b) it commits the straw person fallacy.
c) it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
d) it commits the gambler's fallacy.
e) it commits the fallacy of irrelevant reason.
f) it commits the red herring fallacy.
g) it commitst the fallacy of appeal to tradition.

6. The best evaluation of Teresa argument is

a) it is a good argument.
b) it commits the straw person fallacy.
c) it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
d) it commits the gambler's fallacy.
e) it commits the fallacy of irrelevant reason.
f) it commits the red herring fallacy.
g) it commitst the fallacy of appeal to tradition.

7. The best evaluation of Steve's argument is

a) it is a good argument.
b) it commits the straw person fallacy.
c) it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
d) it commits the gambler's fallacy.
e) it commits the fallacy of irrelevant reason.
f) it commits the red herring fallacy.
g) it commitst the fallacy of appeal to tradition.

8. The best evaluation of Pieter's argument is

a) it is a good argument.
b) it commits the straw person fallacy.
c) it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
d) it commits the gambler's fallacy.
e) it commits the fallacy of irrelevant reason.
f) it commits the red herring fallacy.
g) it commitst the fallacy of appeal to tradition.

9. The best evaluation of Nick argument is

a) it is a good argument.
b) it commits the straw person fallacy.
c) it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
d) it commits the gambler's fallacy.
e) it commits the fallacy of irrelevant reason.
f) it commits the red herring fallacy.
g) it commitst the fallacy of appeal to tradition.

10. The conclusion of Peiter's argument is

a) Either Zack or Nadine made a good argument.
b) Either Muhammad will choose a coconut chocolate or not.
This is more feedback!
This is the feedback!



Back to Top