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