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