"dataset_name": "logical_fallacies"
"description": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about logical\
  \ fallacies.\n\nQ: When an arguer causes confusion during refutation because of\
  \ real or feigned lack of an ability to engage in refutation, that arguer may have\
  \ committed the fallacy of\n(A) poor sportsmanship (B) appeal to compassion (C)\
  \ argument against the person (D) ignorance of refutation\nA: Let's think step by\
  \ step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. Ignorance\
  \ of refutation, one of Aristotle's original list of logical fallacies in his Organon,\
  \ is when someone causes confusion in an argument through real or feigned inability\
  \ to engage in refutation, in order to win the argument. The answer is (D).\n\n\
  Q: The complex question fallacy consists of\n(A) arguing something is inferior just\
  \ because it doesn't do something it was never intended to do. (B) including more\
  \ than one claim in the proposition and treating proof for one claim as proof for\
  \ all the claims. (C) drawing a conclusion before examining the evidence, and only\
  \ considering evidence that supports that conclusion. (D) asking a question that\
  \ includes either an unproven assumption or more than one question, thus making\
  \ a straightforward yes or no answer meaningless.\nA: Let's think step by step.\
  \ We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. The complex question\
  \ fallacy is when someone makes a single yes or no answer to a question meaningless,\
  \ by including either an unproven assumption or many questions. The latter is also\
  \ known as the many questions fallacy. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: Arguing that what\
  \ is true of the parts must be true of the whole is the fallacy of...\n(A) Division\
  \ (B) Composition (C) Appeal to the person (D) Appeal to ignorance\nA: Let's think\
  \ step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies for help. Fallacy\
  \ of composition occurs when someone argues what is true of the parts must be true\
  \ of the whole. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: Which of the following is true of a valid\
  \ categorical syllogism?\n(A) The minor premise must deny the antecedent (B) The\
  \ major premise must affirm the consequent (C) The middle term must be used in at\
  \ least one premise in a universal or unqualified sense (D) All of the above\nA:\
  \ Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies\
  \ for help. A valid categorical syllogism must satisfy several conditions: (1) the\
  \ syllogism must have exactly three terms (2) every term of the syllogism must be\
  \ used twice exactly, (3) a term may be used only once in any premise, and (4) the\
  \ middle term must be used in at least one premise in a universal or unqualified\
  \ sense, etc. Only (C) is true. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: If someone attacks the\
  \ character of an opposing arguer, instead of responding to that opponent's arguments,\
  \ the first person has probably committed which of the following fallacies?\n(A)\
  \ tu quoque (B) horse laugh (C) argument against the person (D) ignoratio elenchi\n\
  A: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies\
  \ for help. The argument against the person fallacy occurs when someone irrelevantly\
  \ attacks the character of an opposing arguer, instead of addressing that opponent's\
  \ arguments. The answer is (C).\n\n"
"group": "mmlu_flan_cot_fewshot_humanities"
"include": "_mmlu_flan_cot_fewshot_template_yaml"
"task": "mmlu_flan_cot_fewshot_logical_fallacies"
