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