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