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