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