1. We know we have a corporate spy in the organization, probably in the manageme
ID: 3489599 • Letter: 1
Question
1. We know we have a corporate spy in the organization, probably in the management team. There is no evidence that the CEO is in on it. Nevertheless, we should replace him. We simply cannot tolerate a corporate spy. a)False dilemma & appeal to ignorance b)appeal to ignorance c)false dilemma
2. Some one stole my computer, and my roommate had access to my computer. She has never stolen anything, however, she must have stolen it. I cannot live with a thief and so am moving out. a)False dilemma & appeal to ignorance b)appeal to ignorance c)false dilemma
3. If I go to the job interview laid-back and unprepared. I'll blow it. But if I prepare, I'll be nervous and blow it anyway. There is no way to get ready for this interview.
a)False dilemma & appeal to ignorance b)appeal to ignorance c)false dilemma
4. Who should we vote for for country sheriff? There are only two qualified candidates: Cody Sheridan and Bobby Brant. We do not know anything about the other three candidates and we shouldn't vote for someone we don't know anything about. Bobby Brant has links to organized crime. So, we shouldn't vote for Brant. I guess our only choice is Cody Sheridan. a)False dilemma & appeal to ignorance b)appeal to ignorance c)false dilemma
Explanation / Answer
These questions are related to logical fallacies.
Let us consider following definitions:
False dilemma: If only 2 options are considered while there is at least another one option available, then this fallacy is known as false dilemma or false dichotomy. There may be spectrum of possible options between 2 extreme options, but considering only 2 extreme options to decide also case of false dilemma. Omission of other available options can be observed here.
Appeal to ignorance: If an individual claims something is good because it is not proved to be bad, then this act is considered as appeal to ignorance. Here, individual ignores that thing is not proven good.
Let us consider questions now:
1. In this case, there is suspicion about spy in corporate sector, but there is no evidence that CEO is involved in this matter; CEO involvement in corporate spying is considered even though it is not proven. Here, argument is even there is no evidence that CEO is not involved in corporate spying, so CEO is involved in spying. This argument is case of ignorance to appeal fallacy (option b).
2. In this case, argument goes like even though there is no evidence of roommate stealing computer and previous history of such acts, as it is not proven that roommate does not stolen, have to conclude computer is stolen by roommate. Even though there are other options rather than separating from roommate like registering complaint about stolen computer, requesting investigation, consider talking with roommate, etc, only options considered to be with roommate or to separate. This argument is case of false dilemma and ignorance to appeal fallacy (option a).
3. In this case, there are other possibilities like getting good job offer by preparing for interview, increase confidence through preparation, etc. Even though other possibilities are present, individual is considering only 2 possibilities and omitting other possibilities or options. This argument is case of false dilemma fallacy (option c).
4. In this case, considering only 2 candidates while there are other candidates available. Argument for cause of omission of other candidates is lack of knowledge about them. Without putting effort to learn about other candidates (options), possible options are restricted to only 2 and further preferring single candidate. Here, this preference to single candidate is because the other has links with criminals which may not affect current performance or not at all proved. Hence, this argument is case of false dilemma and ignorance to appeal fallacy (option a).
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.