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