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. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Prevalent Proof
Red herring
Red Herring
Hasty generalization
2. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Composition
Deductive Reasoning
Nonsequiter
Negative Proof
3. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Oversimplification
Inductive Reasoning
Ad misericordia
Double standard
4. Appeal to reason
Opinion
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Composition
Logos
5. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Equivocation
Prevalent Proof
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Ethos
6. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Nonsequiter
Deductive Reasoning
Red Herring
Composition
7. Reasoning by Debate: When a writer argues against a claim that nobody actually holds or is universally considered weak. Setting up a straw man diverts attention from the real issues.
Circular Reasoning
Either-or Reasoning
Hasty generalization
Straw man
8. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Red Herring
Numbers
Ad misericordia
Ad hominem
9. 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.
Ad hominem
Appeal to Authority
Pathos
Undistributed Middle
10. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Red herring
Composition
Ad hominem
Ad hominem
11. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Ad vericundium
Fact
Slippery slope
Special pleading
12. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Cause-effect relationships
Ad populum
Red Herring
Values
13. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Smoke screen
Composition
Inductive Reasoning
Ad vericundium
14. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Negative Proof
Vagueness
Opinion
Values
15. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Ad vericundium
Statistic
Nonsequiter
Appeal to the golden mean
16. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Slippery Slope
Deductive Reasoning
Opinion
Genetic Fallacy
17. 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
Deductive Reasoning
Appeal to the golden mean
Vagueness
18. 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
Vagueness
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Deductive Reasoning
Correlation as cause
19. 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'
Irrelevant Proof
Undistributed Middle
Red Herring
Fact
20. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Straw man
Cause-effect relationships
Ethos
21. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Values
Equivocation
Composition
Either-or Reasoning
22. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Undistributed Middle
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Anecdote
23. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Begging the question
Circular Reasoning
Either-or Reasoning
Smoke screen
24. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Numbers
Vagueness
Stereotyping
25. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Double standard
Red herring
Composition
Ad hominem
26. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Ad misericordia
Ad populum
Cause-effect relationships
Hasty generalization
27. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Inductive Reasoning
Equivocation
Oversimplification
28. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
Opinion
Statistic
False scenario
False analogy
29. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
False authority
Circular Reasoning
Equivocation
30. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Ethos
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Vagueness
Appeal to Authority
31. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Values
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Pathos
Stereotyping
32. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Genetic Fallacy
Deductive Reasoning
Correlation as cause
Ad hominem
33. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Nonsequiter
Numbers
Stereotyping
Prevalent Proof
34. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Circular Reasoning
Cause-effect relationships
Slippery slope
Anecdote
35. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Irrelevant Proof
Single cause
Circular Reasoning
False analogy
36. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
Ethos
False authority
Ad hominem
Numbers
37. 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.
Equivocation
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Logos
Ad hominem
38. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Hasty generalization
Ad hominem
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
39. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Either -or
Ethos
Circular Reasoning
40. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Ad misericordia
Prevalent Proof
Slippery Slope
Negative Proof
41. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Prevalent Proof
Double standard
Straw man
Either-or Reasoning
42. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Values
Special pleading
Logos
Pathos
43. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
Appeal to Authority
Vagueness
Prevalent Proof
Negative Proof
44. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Opinion
Statistic
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Anecdote
45. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Nonsequiter
Composition
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Fact
46. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Ad misericordia
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Nonsequiter
Appeal to the golden mean
47. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Composition
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Special pleading
48. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Smoke screen
Hasty generalization
Ad populum
49. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Begging the question
Straw man
Deductive Reasoning
Division
50. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Double standard
Pathos
Appeal to the golden mean
Hasty generalization