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. Generalization: Assumes that members of a group must have a characteristic because one or more of its members has that characteristic.
Composition
Logos
Inductive Reasoning
Vagueness
2. Common knowledge or beliefs readers accept as true
Smoke screen
Pathos
Equivocation
Values
3. Condemning an argument because of where it began - how it began - or who began it
Logos
Genetic Fallacy
Straw man
Equivocation
4. 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?
False authority
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Negative Proof
Stereotyping
5. Ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretations of a repeated word or phrase
Ad populum
Cause-effect relationships
Pathos
Equivocation
6. Generalization: Assumes that an individual must have a characteristic because the group to which he or she belongs supposedly has that characteristic
Circular Reasoning
Slippery Slope
Division
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
7. 'Against the man' attacking the person or group to which you are opposed rather than addressing the issue
Ad hominem
Smoke screen
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
False analogy
8. Stating the only two interpretations of actions are alternatives - ignoring any compromise or moderate course
Vagueness
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Dog whistle
Either-or Reasoning
9. Information that is an interpretation of numerical data
Statistic
Nonsequiter
Ad populum
Smoke screen
10. Analogy or comparison that is not logically consistent
False analogy
Anecdote
Correlation as cause
Deductive Reasoning
11. Fallacy that asserts that given two positions - there exists a compromise between them which must be correct.
Irrelevant Proof
Appeal to the golden mean
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Circular Reasoning
12. Cause and Effect: claim than an event with more than one cause has only one cause
Inductive Reasoning
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Single cause
Pathos
13. Any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
Numbers
Red Herring
Straw man
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
14. How similar or how different are the cases being compared? How many point of comparison is the arguer using?
Begging the question
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Slippery slope
Deductive Reasoning
15. 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.
Special pleading
Equivocation
Double standard
Genetic Fallacy
16. Logical reasoning that establishes specific facts or contentions leading to a general conclusion
Either -or
Ad populum
Inductive Reasoning
Begging the question
17. Generalization: an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
Special pleading
Double standard
Ad hominem
Inductive Reasoning
18. Reasoning by Proof: the evidence offered does not really support the claim. Non Sequitur (It does not follow)
Irrelevant Proof
Opinion
False analogy
Appeal to Authority
19. Claiming that one step in the wrong direction will lead to another - potentially disastrous consequence
Slippery slope
Undistributed Middle
Smoke screen
Correlation as cause
20. Generalization: drawing conclusions based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence
Dog whistle
Appeal to Authority
Hasty generalization
Straw man
21. Everybody knows fallacy. Asserts that some idea is common knowledge - so it must be true.
False analogy
Prevalent Proof
Special pleading
Slippery Slope
22. Trying to prove one idea with another idea that is too similar to the first idea
Deductive Reasoning
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Circular Reasoning
Appeal to Authority
23. Obscuring or denying the complexity of an issue
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
Oversimplification
Nonsequiter
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
24. Two comparable issues or ideas are judged by different criteria
Anecdote
Double standard
Numbers
Circular Reasoning
25. 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 Generalization
Straw man
Stereotyping
Composition
26. Appeal based on the credibility of the author
Smoke screen
Equivocation
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Ethos
27. 'To the authority' appeal based on the authority of a source
Equivocation
Statistic
Ad vericundium
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
28. Information the writer asserts as being the result of an event
Ad hominem
Correlation as cause
Cause-effect relationships
Vagueness
29. Appeal to the reader's emotions
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Smoke screen
Pathos
Special pleading
30. 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
Hasty generalization
Correlation as cause
Smoke screen
Red herring
31. Citing an expert on one subject as expert on another
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Slippery Slope
False authority
Opinion
32. Information based on personal interpretation of facts
Opinion
Cause-effect relationships
Genetic Fallacy
Ad misericordia
33. 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!'
Dog whistle
False scenario
Deductive Reasoning
Special pleading
34. A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented
Slippery Slope
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Genetic Fallacy
35. Information gained from personal experience representing a general pattern
Dog whistle
Anecdote
Undistributed Middle
Numbers
36. Appeal to reason
Logos
Division
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
False scenario
37. Cause and Effect: Assuming that an incident that precedes another is the cause of the second incident
Dog whistle
Stereotyping
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Anecdote
38. Reasoning by Debate: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist
Irrelevant Proof
Ad populum
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Either -or
39. Reasoning by Proof: absence of evidence is not evidence; he didn't say that... so it must be false
False scenario
Logos
Negative Proof
Appeal to the golden mean
40. 'it does not follow' drawing a conclusion or making a transition that is not a logical result of the facts
Ad misericordia
Nonsequiter
Evaluating Reasoning by Debate
Hasty generalization
41. 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.
False authority
Appeal to Authority
Ethos
Red Herring
42. Does the evidence prove the point being argued? Is this authority an expert on this particular topic?
Nonsequiter
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority
Red herring
Dog whistle
43. How large is the sample size? How representative is the sample?
Either-or Reasoning
Appeal to the golden mean
Ethos
Evaluating Reasoning by Generalization
44. Reasoning by Proof: an argument that because someone worked hard at something - their conclusions must be right
Numbers
Slippery slope
Evaluating Cause and Effect Reasoning
False authority
45. 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.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Genetic Fallacy
Negative Proof
Dog whistle
46. Appeal to the the pity - sympathy or 'misery' of the audience
Prevalent Proof
Ad misericordia
Evaluating Reasoning by Comparison
Deductive Reasoning
47. 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
Appeal to Authority
Single cause
Undistributed Middle
48. Concealing the author's true intent - belief - or attitude towards an issue
Appeal to the golden mean
Slippery Slope
Smoke screen
Oversimplification
49. 'To the people' appeal to the prejudices of the audience - or claiming that (or a majority) supports your opinion
Ad populum
Single cause
Vagueness
Pathos
50. 'After this therefore because of this' implying that because on event follows another - the first caused the second
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Irrelevant Proof
Ad hominem
Evaluating Reasoning by Proof/Authority