Assume that the premise(s) of the following argument are true. Apply the other three tests of the worthiness of an argument in their proper order: "The Mayor has been in office for three weeks, and our city's economy has completely reversed. We are in boom times! The Mayor proudly, but humbly, accepts the credit for our town's splendid economic recovery." That argument is an example of ________.

A) a fallacy masquerading as a valid inference
B) a fallacy masquerading as a warranted inference
C) a fallacy of relevance
D) a circular argument
E) an argument that is worthy of acceptance, if the premises were in fact true

Question

Mallory McGwire · Accepted Answer

Final Answer : B, Explanation :  The argument is committing the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that because one event followed another, the first caused the second), which makes the argument a fallacy. However, the argument is presenting the fallacy as if it were a warranted inference. The Mayor's acceptance of credit for the economic recovery is also a form of inappropriate self-praise, which is not relevant to the argument's conclusion. Therefore, the argument is a fallacy masquerading as a warranted inference.

Definitions

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

Related questions