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