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