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