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