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