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