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