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