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