Question

the fallacy that occurs when an arguments conclusion does not logically follow from its premises is called:
circular reasoning
ad hominem
non sequitur
appeal to authority
question 12
1 pts
the straw man fallacy involves:
making an argument based on emotions rather than facts
misrepresenting an opponents argument to make it easier to attack
assuming that because two things share a similarity, they are the same
arguing that something is true because an authority figure says it is

Explanation:

• First question:
• Circular reasoning: It is when the conclusion is used as a premise. For example, "The Bible is true because it's the word of God, and we know it's the word of God because the Bible says so."
• Ad hominem: This is attacking the person instead of the argument. Like saying "You can't trust his economic plan because he's a bad - tempered person."
• Non sequitur: By definition, it means the conclusion does not follow from the premises. For instance, "It's sunny today, so I should buy a new car." There's no logical connection.
• Appeal to authority: Relying on an authority figure's say - so without proper evidence. Such as "This diet is good because a famous actor endorses it."
• Second question:
• Making an argument based on emotions rather than facts: This is more related to an emotional fallacy, not the straw - man.
• Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack: This is the essence of the straw - man fallacy. For example, if someone argues for better public transportation funding by saying "We need to invest in buses and subways for a more sustainable city", and the opponent responds "So you want to get rid of all cars and make everyone miserable", which misrepresents the original argument.
• Assuming that because two things share a similarity, they are the same: This is a false equivalence fallacy.
• Arguing that something is true because an authority figure says it is: This is an appeal - to - authority fallacy.

Answer:

• First question: Non sequitur
• Second question: Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack