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