A columnist writes: 'Voluntary euthanasia is morally wrong because ending a human life intentionally is ethically impermissible.' What fallacy is present?

Answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Begging the question by restating the conclusion in the premise

  1. Step 1: The argument claims euthanasia is wrong by asserting that intentionally ending life is impermissible, which merely rephrases the conclusion. Assuming what one is attempting to prove without providing independent supporting justification is begging the question (petitio principii). Answer: Begging the question by restating the conclusion in the premise. Why not the others: "Hasty generalization from examples" jumps to a universal conclusion based on an unrepresentative statistical sample size; "Faulty analogical comparison" compares two situations that lack relevant systemic similarities to support a conclusion; "Appeal to popular consensus" claims a proposition is true simply because the majority of people believe it (ad populum).

Practise more Logical Fallacies and Argument Evaluation.

Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed State Certificate of Language Proficiency (KPG) English mock tests.