Week 13 — Quiz (auto-graded) · Argument, Reasoning & Logical Fallacies

Course: Public Speaking — Fundamentals of Oral Communication (COMM 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Marchetti
Objective tested: Objective 7 — the four reasoning types; the Toulmin model (claim/evidence/warrant); twelve common logical fallacies and their precise definitions.
Points: 10 (1 each) · Assignment group: Quizzes (10% of grade) · Due: end of Module 13.

This is the human-readable quiz with its vetted answer key and feedback. The import-ready Classic QTI is in F-quiz-week-13-qti.xml (generated by the shared validated script — parses with 10 items, every single-answer item exactly one correct). The reusable item-bank entries and the Canvas placement block are at the bottom of this file.

Blueprint

No trick questions; distractors target the Week 13 misconceptions named in the lecture outline.

Questions, key, and feedback

Q1 (MC). A student notices that three campus clubs she's been part of all had poor attendance when meetings were scheduled on Fridays. She concludes: "Campus clubs should not hold meetings on Fridays." This reasoning moves from —
- A. a general rule to a specific conclusion about Fridays
- B. specific observations to a general conclusion — this is inductive reasoning ✅
- C. an assumption that Friday caused the poor attendance
- D. a comparison between campus clubs and another organization
Feedback: Inductive reasoning moves from specific cases (three Friday meetings that flopped) to a general conclusion (Friday meetings don't work). (A = deductive; C = causal; D = analogical.)

Q2 (MC). A speaker argues: "Every semester a new residence-hall director was hired, the dorm's satisfaction ratings improved. Therefore, hiring new directors causes satisfaction to rise." The core flaw in this reasoning is —
- A. generalizing from too few cases (only a few semesters)
- B. assuming causation from sequence — the false-cause (post hoc) fallacy ✅
- C. appealing to an authority who lacks relevant expertise
- D. presenting only two choices when more exist
Feedback: This is the false-cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc) fallacy — B followed A, therefore A caused B. Sequence alone does not establish causation; many other factors could explain the satisfaction ratings. (A describes hasty generalization, which is different — hasty generalization is about sample size, not causation.)

Q3 (MC). A speaker's argument: Claim — "The campus bookstore should extend its hours until 8 p.m." Evidence — "A student survey found 61% of students who finish evening classes at 7 p.m. cannot reach the bookstore before it closes." Warrant — ??? Which of the following BEST supplies the warrant?
- A. "The bookstore closes too early for evening students."
- B. "61% is a substantial majority of students."
- C. "When a clear majority of a group cannot access a service during their primary working hours, extending access to meet documented need is a reasonable institutional adjustment." ✅
- D. "Students should be able to buy textbooks at convenient times."
Feedback: The warrant is the logical principle that connects the evidence to the claim — not a restatement of the claim (A, D) and not just characterizing the evidence (B). C is the warrant: it states the general principle that makes the evidence relevant and persuasive. (A and D essentially restate the claim; B restates the evidence.)

Q4 (Matching). Match each logical fallacy to its correct definition.
| Fallacy | Correct definition |
|---|---|
| Hasty generalization | Drawing a broad conclusion from too few or unrepresentative cases |
| Ad hominem | Attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself |
| Straw man | Misrepresenting an opponent's position and attacking the misrepresentation |
| Bandwagon (ad populum) | Arguing that something is true or good because many people believe or do it |
| Begging the question | Using the conclusion as a premise — circular reasoning |
Feedback: The classic mix-ups: ad hominem attacks the person; straw man attacks a distortion of the position; these are not the same. Hasty generalization is about sample size; false cause (not in this set) is about causation — different flaws. Begging the question does NOT mean "raising a question" — it means the conclusion is smuggled in as a premise.

Q5 (MC). A student proposes: "We should add a recycling bin to each classroom." Her classmate responds: "So you want to turn every classroom into a trash depot and completely disrupt learning?" The classmate's response is an example of —
- A. ad hominem — attacking the person who made the proposal
- B. straw man — misrepresenting the proposal and attacking the exaggeration ✅
- C. red herring — introducing an irrelevant topic
- D. slippery slope — predicting a chain of bad consequences
Feedback: Straw man = misrepresent the position, then attack the misrepresentation. "Turn every classroom into a trash depot" is not what was proposed — the classmate has exaggerated the idea and is attacking their own distorted version, leaving the actual proposal untouched. (Ad hominem would attack the person, not their idea; red herring would change the subject; slippery slope would predict an escalating chain.)

Q6 (MC). A club president says: "Either you volunteer for every weekend event this semester, or you clearly don't care about this organization." This is an example of —
- A. false dilemma (either-or) — presenting only two options when more exist ✅
- B. bandwagon — appealing to the group's opinion
- C. appeal to ignorance — no one has proved not caring
- D. slippery slope — predicting escalating consequences from a small decision
Feedback: False dilemma — the statement presents only two extreme options (volunteer for everything, or don't care at all) when many intermediate positions exist (volunteer for some events, support in other ways). (The other options don't apply: bandwagon would claim "everyone does it"; appeal to ignorance would say "no one's proved you don't care"; slippery slope would chain one small step to a cascade.)

Q7 (MC). A speaker cites a study conducted by nutrition researchers at a university medical school showing that a particular dietary pattern reduces the risk of a specific chronic condition. This is —
- A. a false-authority fallacy because the speaker isn't a doctor
- B. a valid appeal to authority — genuine expertise in the relevant field, citing research ✅
- C. a bandwagon appeal because many researchers agree
- D. a hasty generalization from one study
Feedback: Valid appeal to authority: the source (university medical school nutrition researchers) has genuine expertise in the relevant field (nutrition and health outcomes) and is citing actual research. This is NOT a false-authority fallacy. (A is wrong — the speaker isn't claiming to be the doctor; they're citing real experts. C is wrong — this is expert evidence, not popularity. D may be a concern worth noting separately, but identifying the authority type is B.)

Q8 (True / False). "Any appeal to emotion in a persuasive speech is a logical fallacy and should be eliminated."
- True
- False ✅
Feedback: False. Emotional appeals (pathos) are a legitimate rhetorical tool when the emotion is relevant, proportionate, and accompanies evidence and reasoning — not a fallacy. The fallacy occurs when emotion is used to substitute for reasoning or evidence, rather than accompany it. (We covered this in Week 12.)

Q9 (MC). A student argues: "If the college allows students to decorate their dorm room doors, next they'll let students tear down walls, and eventually every building on campus will be destroyed." This is an example of —
- A. red herring — the argument changes the subject to campus buildings
- B. begging the question — the conclusion restates the premise
- C. slippery slope — a chain of increasingly dire consequences without evidence for each step ✅
- D. false dilemma — only two outcomes are presented
Feedback: Slippery slope = one small step leads to a catastrophic cascade, without demonstrating why each step follows inevitably from the prior one. There is no evidence that door decorations lead to wall-destruction. (Red herring changes the subject; begging the question uses the conclusion as a premise; false dilemma presents only two stark choices.)

Q10 (MC). In a debate about campus parking policy, one speaker says: "Why should we even talk about parking when the real problem is that tuition fees have risen every year for the past decade?" This is best described as —
- A. ad hominem — attacking the other speaker
- B. straw man — misrepresenting the parking argument
- C. red herring — introducing an irrelevant topic to divert from the actual argument ✅
- D. begging the question — restating the tuition claim as a premise
Feedback: Red herring = introduce an unrelated issue to distract from or avoid the actual argument. Rising tuition is a separate issue; mentioning it neither addresses nor refutes the parking argument. (Ad hominem would attack the person; straw man would distort the parking argument and attack the distortion; begging the question would use the tuition point as both premise and conclusion.)

Answer key (quick reference)

Quality gate (self-checked): each single-answer item (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10) has exactly one correct option; the matching item (Q4) pairs five fallacies to five distinct definitions, one-to-one. Every item tests a concept within Week 13 course definitions. No quotation or statistic is asserted as real — all described arguments in the items are explicitly illustrative scenarios. The classic distractors are present: false cause vs. hasty generalization (Q2); straw man vs. ad hominem vs. red herring (Q5, Q10); valid authority vs. false authority (Q7); emotional appeal myth (Q8). No computation; no math gate required. Rubric note: the quiz is worth 10 points (1 per item); points sum = 10. PASS.

Item-bank entries (for variants + the final)

All ten items are tagged course=COMM1 · week=13 · objective=7 · topic=reasoning-fallacies-toulmin and deposited in Item Bank: Week 13 — Argument, Reasoning & Logical Fallacies. The final (Week 16) and per-term variant updates draw fresh items from this bank. (Tags: q1 inductive-deductive, q2 false-cause-vs-hasty, q3 toulmin-warrant, q4 fallacy-match, q5 straw-man-vs-adhominem, q6 false-dilemma, q7 valid-vs-false-authority, q8 emotional-appeal-myth, q9 slippery-slope, q10 red-herring.)

Canvas placement block

canvas_object   = Quizzes::Quiz
title           = "Week 13 Quiz — Argument, Reasoning & Logical Fallacies"
assignment_group = "Quizzes"
points_possible = 10
grading_type    = points
due_offset_days = 6        # 6 days after module start
published       = true
shuffle_answers = true
provenance      = "~ Prof. Marchetti's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"