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