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