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