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. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Pathos
Ethos
Appeal to Authority
Stereotyping
2. 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.'
Hasty generalization
Numbers
Slippery slope
Ad hominem
3. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Dog whistle
Ad vericundium
Ethos
Prevalent Proof
4. 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
Ethos
Slippery Slope
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
5. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Stereotyping
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Ad misericordia
6. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Either-or Reasoning
Statistic
Opinion
Fact
7. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Division
False authority
Hasty generalization
Either-or Reasoning
8. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Logos
Circular Reasoning
Ad misericordia
Ad populum
9. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Red Herring
Hasty generalization
Inductive Reasoning
Straw man
10. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Nonsequiter
Red herring
Cause-effect relationships
Undistributed Middle
11. Drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence; using all instances when only some apply
Hasty generalization
Ethos
Opinion
Deductive Reasoning
12. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Ad vericundium
Irrelevant Proof
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Division
13. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
Pathos
Irrelevant Proof
Ad populum
Prevalent Proof
14. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Ad hominem
Division
Numbers
Genetic Fallacy
15. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Slippery slope
Either-or Reasoning
Genetic Fallacy
16. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Values
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Numbers
Equivocation
17. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Ethos
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Numbers
Opinion
18. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Either -or
Nonsequiter
False analogy
Straw man
19. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Pathos
Slippery slope
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Either -or
20. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Genetic Fallacy
Fact
Circular Reasoning
Special pleading
21. Information that can be objectively proven as true
Smoke screen
Begging the question
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Fact
22. 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
Statistic
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Correlation as cause
Ethos
23. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Equivocation
Dog whistle
Oversimplification
Irrelevant Proof
24. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
False scenario
Equivocation
Composition
Red Herring
25. 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.
Undistributed Middle
Equivocation
Correlation as cause
Double standard
26. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Special pleading
Nonsequiter
Dog whistle
Opinion
27. Have all reasonable alternatives been considered/eliminated? Does this author attack the other views in a fair way?
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Single cause
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
28. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Anecdote
Division
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Inductive Reasoning
29. Appeal to reason
Prevalent Proof
Logos
Composition
Stereotyping
30. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Smoke screen
Hasty generalization
Prevalent Proof
Stereotyping
31. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Straw man
Pathos
Begging the question
Genetic Fallacy
32. 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?
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Stereotyping
Nonsequiter
33. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Prevalent Proof
Stereotyping
Composition
Either -or
34. 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
Slippery Slope
Opinion
Single cause
35. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Vagueness
Oversimplification
Inductive Reasoning
Either -or
36. 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.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Straw man
Equivocation
Ad hominem
37. 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 Debate
Oversimplification
Appeal to Authority
Red Herring
38. Prejudging an individual based on ideas one has about the group the individual belongs to
Irrelevant Proof
Hasty generalization
Ad hominem
Stereotyping
39. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
Hasty generalization
Opinion
Irrelevant Proof
False analogy
40. 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.
Slippery slope
Deductive Reasoning
Dog whistle
Ethos
41. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Double standard
Inductive Reasoning
Special pleading
Fact
42. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Double standard
Composition
Hasty generalization
43. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Pathos
Single cause
Oversimplification
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
44. Reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by stating a general principle and then applying that principle to a specific case
Deductive Reasoning
Numbers
Ad hominem
Opinion
45. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Either -or
Undistributed Middle
Appeal to the golden mean
Nonsequiter
46. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Circular Reasoning
Anecdote
Single cause
Irrelevant Proof
47. Statements that are intentionally vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations
Appeal to Authority
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Vagueness
Equivocation
48. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert readers' attention from the main issue being discussed
Hasty generalization
Ad hominem
Red herring
False authority
49. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Statistic
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Ad hominem
Equivocation
50. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Smoke screen
Pathos
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Oversimplification