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