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