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