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