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