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