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