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