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