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