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