SUBJECTS
|
BROWSE
|
CAREER CENTER
|
POPULAR
|
JOIN
|
LOGIN
Business Skills
|
Soft Skills
|
Basic Literacy
|
Certifications
About
|
Help
|
Privacy
|
Terms
|
Email
Search
Test your basic knowledge |
SAT Essay Logical Fallacies
Start Test
Study First
Subjects
:
sat
,
english
,
writing-skills
Instructions:
Answer 50 questions in 15 minutes.
If you are not ready to take this test, you can
study here
.
Match each statement with the correct term.
Don't refresh. All questions and answers are randomly picked and ordered every time you load a test.
This is a study tool. The 3 wrong answers for each question are randomly chosen from answers to other questions. So, you might find at times the answers obvious, but you will see it re-enforces your understanding as you take the test each time.
1. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Special pleading
Slippery slope
Vagueness
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
2. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Ad vericundium
Ethos
Single cause
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
3. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Slippery slope
Ad vericundium
Ad hominem
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
4. Reasoning by Proof: A fallacy in which a speaker or writer seeks to persuade not by giving evidence but by appealing to the respect people have for a person or institution.
Fact
False authority
Appeal to Authority
Either-or Reasoning
5. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Composition
Hasty generalization
Single cause
Inductive Reasoning
6. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Oversimplification
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Either -or
7. Reasoning by Debate: In an argument - this is an attack on the person rather than on the opponent's ideas. It comes from the Latin meaning 'against the man.'
Ad vericundium
Ad hominem
Statistic
Appeal to the golden mean
8. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Slippery slope
Special pleading
Smoke screen
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
9. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Inductive Reasoning
Pathos
Oversimplification
Composition
10. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Values
Ad hominem
Nonsequiter
Slippery slope
11. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Circular Reasoning
Single cause
Nonsequiter
Stereotyping
12. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Negative Proof
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Begging the question
Single cause
13. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Equivocation
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Anecdote
Ad misericordia
14. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Correlation as cause
Hasty generalization
Numbers
Pathos
15. Cause and Effect: 'What if' fallacy. Argues that everything would be different if one variable was different. Example: 'If the Nazis had won WWII - we'd all be speaking German!'
False scenario
Ad misericordia
Correlation as cause
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
16. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Single cause
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Values
Ad vericundium
17. Appeal to reason
Single cause
Division
Logos
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
18. The use by a speaker of coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has a different (and negative) meaning for a targeted subgroup of the audience.
Stereotyping
Dog whistle
Single cause
Red herring
19. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
False scenario
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Values
Slippery Slope
20. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Prevalent Proof
Double standard
Deductive Reasoning
Opinion
21. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Deductive Reasoning
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Pathos
Statistic
22. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Ad hominem
Slippery slope
Special pleading
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
23. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Stereotyping
Cause-effect relationships
Ad populum
Red Herring
24. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Inductive Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Irrelevant Proof
Anecdote
25. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Values
Equivocation
Appeal to the golden mean
Either -or
26. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Smoke screen
Hasty generalization
Composition
Special pleading
27. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Division
Pathos
Ethos
False analogy
28. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Circular Reasoning
Anecdote
Single cause
Appeal to Authority
29. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Special pleading
Vagueness
Ad hominem
Slippery slope
30. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
False analogy
False authority
Appeal to Authority
Either-or Reasoning
31. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Single cause
Negative Proof
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Special pleading
32. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Opinion
Either -or
Hasty generalization
Stereotyping
33. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Anecdote
Red herring
Slippery Slope
Irrelevant Proof
34. Writer encourages readers to accept a conclusion without any support
Begging the question
Composition
False scenario
Cause-effect relationships
35. Information that can be objectively proven as true
Smoke screen
Circular Reasoning
Pathos
Fact
36. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Circular Reasoning
Undistributed Middle
Ad populum
Either -or
37. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
False scenario
Ad hominem
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
38. False transitive property - you assume that just because two things share a characteristic - all of their characteristics are shared: - 'penguins are black and white - old tv shows are black and white - therefore penguins are old tv shows'
Hasty generalization
Undistributed Middle
Anecdote
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
39. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Red herring
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Logos
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
40. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Statistic
Stereotyping
Either-or Reasoning
Straw man
41. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Division
Genetic Fallacy
Ethos
Equivocation
42. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Hasty generalization
Slippery Slope
Statistic
Red herring
43. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Double standard
Genetic Fallacy
Single cause
44. Cause and Effect: A fallacy that assumes that because two variables are correlated (happen at the same time) that one must have caused the other
Correlation as cause
Division
Ad hominem
Deductive Reasoning
45. When a writer uses the same term in two different senses in an argument. i.e. People choose what laws they obey. The Law of Gravity is a law. I choose to disobey the law of gravity.
Hasty generalization
Statistic
Equivocation
Prevalent Proof
46. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Nonsequiter
Anecdote
Red Herring
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
47. Is there a reasonable connection between the cause and the effect? Is that connection explained? Are there other possible causes that have not been considered?
Cause-effect relationships
Inductive Reasoning
Logos
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
48. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Statistic
Equivocation
Values
Dog whistle
49. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Either-or Reasoning
Either -or
Red Herring
Prevalent Proof
50. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
False analogy
Equivocation
Irrelevant Proof
Composition