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