Choose the best analysis for each fictional scenario. The explanations focus on timing, relevance, scope, and whether the statement proposes a fair test.
Method#
- Identify the claim that needs evaluation.
- Mark any framing supplied before the claim.
- Ask whether the framing identifies a specific reliability risk.
- Ask whether evidence will still be examined.
Eight scenarios
Select one answer for each question, then check your score and read every explanation.
Answer key
The answer key also makes this exercise usable without JavaScript.
Answer to question 1
Poisoning the well
The chair supplies a broad character frame before the analysis and gives no method for checking its calculations.
Answer to question 2
Potentially fair source criticism
The conflict is relevant and leads to a proportionate check rather than automatic rejection.
Answer to question 3
Straw man
The response changes the content of the proposal from a pilot to a permanent ban.
Answer to question 4
Tu quoque
The manager responds to criticism with a hypocrisy charge, leaving the present missing inspection unresolved.
Answer to question 5
Direct evidential criticism
The statement identifies a specific, reproducible conflict with the reported figure.
Answer to question 6
Loaded question that may also poison the well
The question presupposes dishonesty and broadcasts that discrediting premise before testimony.
Answer to question 7
Red herring
The furniture issue diverts the discussion without necessarily attacking a source.
Answer to question 8
Responsible provenance check
Origin motivates authentication but is not treated as proof that the photograph is false.
References#
Bradley Dowden. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Entries on Ad Hominem, Poisoning the Well, Straw Man, Red Herring, and related fallacies.
Peer-reviewed reference used for concise fallacy definitions and for the common classification of poisoning the well as preemptive circumstantial ad hominem.
Leo Groarke. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. 2026. Sections on informal argument evaluation and ad hominem.
Scholarly overview used for the broader context of evaluating ordinary-language arguments and for the point that source criticism can sometimes be relevant rather than automatically fallacious.