1.The attorneys for the prosecution were not able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Hinckley was sane when he fired at President Reagan. We know this because Hinckley's own lawyers declared that at the end of the trial. So, we have no choice but to conclude that he was insane.
Answer: Hasty Generalization
2. Some regular churchgoers believe that taxpayers' dollars should not be used to fund laboratories that carry out tests on animals for medical research. Hence, it is wrong to go on spending taxpayers' dollars for that purpose.
Answer: Appeal to unqualified authority
3. The Internet is a great technological advance and is available to many people. Space travel is another great technological advance. Thus space travel is available to many people.
Answer: Appeal to ignorance
4. There is no extraterrestrial life. After all, no one has ever found observable data to support the claim that such life exists.
answer: Appeal to ignorance
1. The answer is "Hasty Generalization" because the conclusion that Hinckley was insane is based on a single piece of evidence - the statement made by his own lawyers. This is not enough to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he was insane. To reach a valid conclusion, we would need to consider all available evidence and arguments presented during the trial.
To avoid hasty generalizations, it is important to consider a variety of perspectives, gather sufficient evidence, and carefully evaluate the arguments before drawing conclusions.
2. The answer is "Appeal to unqualified authority" because the argument relies on the belief of some regular churchgoers without considering their expertise or qualifications on the topic of medical research. The fact that they attend church regularly does not necessarily make them qualified to provide an informed opinion on the matter.
To avoid falling for this fallacy, it is important to critically evaluate the authority being cited and consider whether they have the necessary expertise or knowledge to make a reliable judgment.
3. The answer is "Appeal to ignorance" because the argument assumes that if something is a great technological advance and available to many people, another technological advance must also be available to many people. This is an incorrect assumption as technological advancements can differ in their accessibility and feasibility.
To avoid this fallacy, it is important to consider each claim or issue on its own merits and not assume that the characteristics of one thing automatically apply to another.
4. The answer is also "Appeal to ignorance" because the argument assumes that the absence of observable data supporting the claim of extraterrestrial life is proof of its non-existence. It relies on the lack of evidence rather than providing any evidence against the existence of extraterrestrial life.
To avoid this fallacy, it is important to recognize that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. It is necessary to critically examine the available evidence and consider alternative explanations before reaching conclusions.