Who can pass the Logic Challenge?

Question

Give examples of each of the following logical fallacies:
Begging the question
Post hoc
Non sequitur
Either/or
Hasty generalization
Oversimplification.

Answer 1

Begging the question, the conclusion is assumed in the premise. Suppose a man is guilty. He shows no remorse for the crime he is accused of. Therefore this implies he's guilty. Therefore he's guilty. (which may be demonstrated as suppose A, therefore B, therefore C - therefore A) This is logically unsound because you're making assumptions on what may be a false premise, A implies A suppose A therefore A. The fallacy lies in the assumption that because he shows no remorse he is guilty - he may show no remorse because he didn't do it.

Post hoc - meaning after the fact; looking for patterns in data that weren't specified beforehand, therefore which may be completely random and not indicative of a trend. "I surveyed 100 people about which political party they vote for. Afterwards I noticed that 74% of those who are fat voted for the republicans." If you wanted to conduct a proper survey into correlation between weight and political affiliation you would have taken a range of different weights and asked them their opinions, rather than taking a random sample and drawing the conclusions afterwards.

Non Sequitur - "it does not follow", a conclusion which doesn't follow the premise. For instance you could say "fish swim and they have a heart. I have a heart and I can swim. Therefore I am a fish"

Either/or - The assumption that if we don't do one thing, another thing will surely happen. "Either we fight them in Iraq, or we fight them over here"

Hasty generalisation - assuming something despite there being a lack of evidence. "I surveyed 2 people who thought it was Monday today. Therefore it may be assumed it is indeed Monday."

Oversimplification - where factors in an event are ignored in favour of one or few simple causes. For instance there is a fire on the same street as a known arsonist, therefore it may be assumed the arsonist started the fire. This may or may not be true; the fire may have started from a whole range of different causes.

Answer 2

heh. people need this on here...

Begging the question:
We go into iraq because there are terrosits there. The terrorists are there because we went into Iraq. Therefore we must go into iraq.

Post Hoc: the WTC were hit, then we went into Iraq. Therefore we went into Iraq because of 9/11.

Non sequitur: If one is elected, one must be president. George Bush is president, so he must be elected.
That actually does not logically follow, even if he did win FL. What would follow is : George W got the majority of Electoral votes, therefore he was elected president.

Either/Or. We have to give up our civil liberties or the terrorists win!

Hasty Generalization: Some terrorists are Muslims, so all terrorists must be Muslims! (see IRA to disprove this)

Oversimplification: The War in Iraq is a fiasco because it was mismanaged.