Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumAppeal Fallacies (Authority, Emotion, Majority)

A political campaign spokesperson made several distinct arguments to persuade voters to support the 'Green Canopy' urban redevelopment initiative.

Which of the following statements made by the spokesperson contain an illegitimate logical appeal to emotion, popular opinion, or unqualified authority? (Select all that apply)

  1. If we reject this initiative, our beloved city's parks will turn into dangerous, barren wastelands, depriving our vulnerable children of the joy of nature.Answer
  2. We must adopt this initiative because a recent newspaper poll shows that 85 percent of the city's residents believe it is the right path forward.Answer
  3. C
    Because the introduction of similar initiatives in neighboring cities coincided with an increase in property values, this initiative will definitely cause our property values to rise.
  4. Dr. Elena Rostova, a globally recognized and award-winning cardiovascular surgeon, strongly endorses the initiative's structural engineering plans.Answer
  5. E
    While the initiative is extensive, every individual component of the project is highly affordable, meaning the overall project budget must be highly affordable.

Answer

The statements containing illegitimate appeals are: the statement warning of barren wastelands and depriving children (appeal to emotion), the statement citing an 85 percent newspaper poll (appeal to majority), and the statement citing a cardiovascular surgeon's endorsement of engineering plans (appeal to unqualified authority).
Three of the statements successfully demonstrate the specific appeal fallacies requested. The statement warning about 'barren wastelands' and 'vulnerable children' relies on fear and pity instead of evidence, which is an appeal to emotion. The statement arguing for the initiative based on an 85 percent approval poll incorrectly substitutes popular opinion for logical merit, committing an appeal to majority. Finally, the statement citing a cardiovascular surgeon's endorsement of structural engineering plans relies on the opinion of an expert who has no established relevance to the field in question, committing an appeal to unqualified authority.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the question stem to identify the specific task.
The task is to identify statements that commit one of three specific logical flaws: appeal to emotion, appeal to popular opinion (majority), or appeal to unqualified authority.
Understanding the exact constraints of the prompt ensures we do not select statements that contain other, unrelated types of logical flaws.
2
Evaluate the statement regarding 'dangerous, barren wastelands' and 'vulnerable children'.
This statement substitutes logical evidence for inflammatory and fear-inducing language.
This matches the definition of an appeal to emotion.
3
Evaluate the statement regarding the 85 percent newspaper poll.
This statement concludes the initiative is the 'right path forward' purely because a large majority supports it.
This matches the definition of an appeal to popular opinion (ad populum).
4
Evaluate the statement regarding the cardiovascular surgeon's endorsement.
This statement uses a medical expert to validate structural engineering plans.
Because the expert's credentials are in a completely unrelated field, this constitutes an appeal to unqualified authority.
5
Evaluate the remaining statements about property values and individual component affordability.
The property value statement confuses correlation with causation, and the affordability statement incorrectly infers a whole from its parts.
While both statements contain logical flaws, neither commits an appeal to emotion, majority, or authority, making them incorrect answers.

Key Concept

Appeal Fallacies (Authority, Emotion, Majority)
Rate this question

Topics

Appeal Fallacies (Authority, Emotion, Majority)

More questions from this topic