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