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. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Numbers
Stereotyping
Composition
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
2. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Red herring
Inductive Reasoning
Slippery Slope
Either-or Reasoning
3. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Opinion
Deductive Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Negative Proof
4. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Genetic Fallacy
Correlation as cause
Appeal to the golden mean
Slippery slope
5. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Red Herring
Logos
Pathos
Undistributed Middle
6. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Ad misericordia
Special pleading
Pathos
7. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Values
Appeal to the golden mean
Either-or Reasoning
8. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Genetic Fallacy
Fact
Slippery slope
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
9. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Red herring
Values
Logos
10. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Numbers
Logos
False authority
Inductive Reasoning
11. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Deductive Reasoning
False scenario
Circular Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
12. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Composition
Ethos
Hasty generalization
Irrelevant Proof
13. Writer encourages readers to accept a conclusion without any support
Begging the question
Dog whistle
Single cause
Ad hominem
14. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Pathos
Anecdote
Division
Circular Reasoning
15. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Division
Stereotyping
Ethos
Deductive Reasoning
16. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Hasty generalization
Prevalent Proof
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Ad populum
17. 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.
False scenario
Inductive Reasoning
Division
Dog whistle
18. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Deductive Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Slippery Slope
Division
19. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
False analogy
Either -or
Straw man
Single cause
20. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Logos
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
21. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Equivocation
Red Herring
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
22. 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?
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Prevalent Proof
Dog whistle
Ad hominem
23. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
Genetic Fallacy
Fact
Hasty generalization
False analogy
24. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Statistic
Correlation as cause
Ad vericundium
Division
25. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Division
Correlation as cause
Ad hominem
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
26. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Straw man
Double standard
Opinion
Equivocation
27. 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 hominem
Prevalent Proof
Appeal to Authority
Slippery slope
28. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Ad hominem
Circular Reasoning
Opinion
Begging the question
29. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
False analogy
Begging the question
Either -or
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
30. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
False analogy
Nonsequiter
False authority
Statistic
31. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Smoke screen
Composition
Dog whistle
Vagueness
32. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Ad vericundium
Genetic Fallacy
Slippery Slope
Smoke screen
33. 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'
Double standard
Undistributed Middle
Red herring
Equivocation
34. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
False authority
Ad misericordia
Undistributed Middle
Deductive Reasoning
35. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Ad hominem
Hasty generalization
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Cause-effect relationships
36. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Ad vericundium
Either-or Reasoning
Undistributed Middle
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
37. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Genetic Fallacy
Irrelevant Proof
Pathos
Ethos
38. 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
Appeal to Authority
Statistic
Straw man
Correlation as cause
39. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Oversimplification
Special pleading
Either-or Reasoning
Slippery slope
40. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
False authority
Composition
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Genetic Fallacy
41. Appeal to reason
Appeal to Authority
Logos
Equivocation
Correlation as cause
42. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Ad misericordia
Slippery slope
Hasty generalization
Either -or
43. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Hasty generalization
Slippery Slope
Double standard
44. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Hasty generalization
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Opinion
False authority
45. Information that can be objectively proven as true
Fact
Either-or Reasoning
Division
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
46. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Cause-effect relationships
Stereotyping
Deductive Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
47. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Single cause
Irrelevant Proof
Red herring
Cause-effect relationships
48. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Ad vericundium
Logos
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
49. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Equivocation
Appeal to the golden mean
Numbers
50. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
Inductive Reasoning
Division
False authority
Appeal to the golden mean