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